Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUNDEE EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday, 27th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Giro

Mr. Simon Mahon: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many persons are now employed by the national Giro; when this number can be expected to increase; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): About 3,000. Future staffing levels are for the Post Office to determine.

Mr. Mahon: Do not those figures denote the efforts being made by the national Giro to make its service both profitable and viable, and would it not help the Minister and the Giro organisation if more local authorities, Government Departments and commercial interests saw the advantages of this great organisation and used them?

Sir J. Eden: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the interests themselves and for the Departments concerned. It is the aim of the management of Giro to keep its costs under proper control and to ensure a viable operation as quickly as possible.

Mr. Fell: I understand the reason for the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), but may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that there will be no increase in staff unless the Giro system shows that it is certain to make a good profit?

Sir J. Eden: It is, as my hon. Friend will recognise, clearly a matter of concern to the management that it keeps costs in balance and it will, I have no doubt, watch this most carefully as the demand for Giro services increases.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if he allows Giro to remain as it is and does not take up the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) he will be doing it a great disservice? We are tired of people in this House knocking Giro, and it is about time the right hon. Gentleman did something positive to ensure that this valuable service was allowed to expand rather than stay as it is.

Sir J. Eden: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government have done something extremely positive about Giro, and since the decision was taken about its future both turnover and balances in the system have increased by 15 per cent.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is satisfied that the recent increases in Giro tariffs are enabling the Giro to meet the financial objective which they were introduced to realise; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether it still remains his policy that the Giro experiment will be discontinued unless it is making a positive contribution to the overall finances of the Post Office Corporation by 1st July, 1973.

Sir J. Eden: It is too early to assess the effects of the tariff increases introduced on 1st July but I see no reason to anticipate that they will fail to meet the financial objective referred to.

Mr. Dempsey: I acknowledge the need for some increases to maintain our Giro system, but does the Minister realise that


the cost of payment of a consumer's simple electricity account has risen from 4p to 10p and that this is paid by pensioners, people on the sick list, the unemployed and the lower wage earning classes? Does he consider that such increases should not be so steep but rather should be graded so that ordinary consumers can meet the cost more reasonably?

Sir J. Eden: It is terribly important that the aim of Giro should be to promote profitable growth with good service at economic prices. It must be for individual account holders to assess the value they attach to the services they receive.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my right hon. Friend give a clear answer to my Question? Does it remain the Government's intention that the Giro must fulfil not only the long-term but the short-term objective set out, as we understand, by Cooper Brothers and Co. if it is perpetuated beyond next summer?

Sir J. Eden: I see no purpose in trying to anticipate what may be the position a year or five years from now. The Giro has been set an objective. We must encourage it to meet it.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister confirm the confidence that the Post Office staff has shown in the Giro to the extent that over 100,000 Post Office employees are now Giro account holders? If the Government were to follow this example it would ensure that the target set for Giro would be achieved in less than five years.

Sir J. Eden: As I indicated in answer to an earlier supplementary question on this subject, the number of account holders is increasing.

Mr. Fell: Can my right hon. Friend at least give some encouragement to the House in the matter of Giro meeting its objective? Can he tell us that there has been an increase in business since the increases in tariffs?

Sir J. Eden: It is much too early to do that. We must give it a chance to progress.

Telephone Dialling

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will ascertain on what basis the Post Office estimates that only 8·7 per

cent. of subscriber trunk dialling calls and 3·4 per cent. of local calls are connected inaccurately or unsuccessfully.

Sir J. Eden: These estimates which appear in the Post Office's Annual Report are its direct responsibility.

Mr. Lamont: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those figures are not the general experience of the public and are generally disbelieved? Is he aware of the figures published in The Times by Mr. R. J. Callow last year showing a different result? If these figures are so inaccurate, what confidence can the public have in the charging meters?

Sir J. Eden: Possibly one of the difficulties—and I speak also as an individual member of the public—is that when one is not connected it may be for a number of different reasons. It could be due to the fact that the line is engaged, that there is no reply or that one has misdialled.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the 8·7 per cent, and the 3·4 per cent. consist entirely of calls attempted by myself? When I attempt to make a telephone call, I amfar more likely to get a strange howling noise, an unaccountable engaged tone or total silence, with an occasional direct connection. Would the right hon. Gentleman attend to this, because my experience is duplicated millions of times?

Sir J. Eden: The sounds which the hon. Gentleman hears when he seeks to make a telephone call may have something to do with the anticipatory powers of the recipient.

Satellite Communications

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is satisfied that the United Kingdom's share in satellite communications is adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: Yes. The Post Office is the second largest investor in Intelsat and its present share of 7·23 per cent. will go up to about 10 per cent. when the definitive Intelsat agreements come into force early next year.

Mr. Loveridge: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that his Department is so far-sighted in this matter of


space utilisation. Does he recognise that in the long-term future his Department might benefit much from Britain taking part in the post-Apollo programme? Will he therefore encourage his colleagues in the Government not to let Britain miss out on a valuable chance?

Sir J. Eden: The post-Apollo programme is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Post Office put forward a view on the implications to itself of post-Apollo?

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office is very interested in any development and any programme that will improve and assist in increasing the efficiency of telecommunications.

Commemorative Stamps

Mr. David Clark: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many issues of commemorative stamps depicting natural history appeared in 1971.

Sir J. Eden: None, Sir.

Mr. Clark: I am sure the Minister will agree that the fact that there were no commemorative stamps last year depicting natural history has been a loss to the public. Will he have words with the Post Office on the possibility of introducing a set of commemorative stamps next year signifying national tree planting year?

Sir J. Eden: Yes, Sir. The Post Office has already announced its programme of special stamps for next year, and that is to include a British tree stamp to mark 1973 as tree planting year.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend realise the delight that will be caused by the statement that the Post Office will commemorate with a 9p stamp the national tree planting year, 1973? I do not wish to sound as though we are not as delighted as we might have been, but will my right hon. Friend look to the possibility of a range of stamps, because English trees make such an interesting design for postage stamps?

Sir.J. Eden: On this occasion it will probably be only one stamp that will

bear the design of a British tree, probably an English oak—but it has not yet been settled. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's interest and initiative in promoting this idea.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: We would all accept the imaginative selection of commemorative issues, but will the Minister comment on the report that the Philatelic Bureau's revenue fell from £2·4 million in 1969 to £2·1 million in 1971?

Sir J. Eden: That is another question.

Trans-Atlantic Telecommunications

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what discussions he has had with the Americans about Post Office telephone communications across the Atlantic; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: None, Sir, but in concert with my counterparts in Europe I recently urged the United States Federal Communications Commission to authorise the United States carriers to participate with us in the provision of additional submarine cable facilities for telecommunication with the United States. This has met with a favourable response.

Mr. Dalyell: The Post Office has an interest in the post-Apollo programme, but what has it done to persuade its Whitehall colleagues as to its importance?

Sir J. Eden: That is a matter primarily for the Post Office.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed is not a submarine cable but telecommunications by satellite? Surely this is the method of the future for communications with America.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. We need both. There must be a proper balance between the two transmission media, cable and satellite. There must be adequate back-up facilities as a safeguard against breakdown.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Overseas Ministers (Meetings)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) what official meetings he proposes to hold with his Commonwealth counterparts;
(2) what plans he has for official meetings with his counterparts in European Economic Community countries.

Sir J. Eden: My officials meet their counterparts in the Commonwealth and European Economic Community countries in the normal course of their duties. I shall continue to take any opportunity which presents itself for informal meetings with overseas Ministers.

Mr. Huckfield: I congratulate the Minister on combining both my Questions. Will he, first, seriously study the prospect of direct dialling to Commonwealth countries as we now have this facility in respect of many other parts of the world? Will he also ensure that something is done to improve the quality of direct dialling services to Europe? If he cannot improve the quality of these services, will he now cease to advertise them?

Sir J. Eden: Those are both matters for other Questions and they do not arise directly from the Questions I have answered.

Television Advertising (Political Parties)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Televison Act, 1964, so as to allow political parties to advertise on television.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that all companies whose products are banned from being advertised on television, such as tobacco companies, get round this by having sponsored programmes and display advertisements? Would it be in order for a company such as Watney to display its sign at a party political conference behind the head of the Prime Minister since it gives £40,000 to Conservative Party funds?

Sir J. Eden: Advertisements on television for political parties or directly on their behalf are not allowed.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer? Would it not be that if he were to allow the Labour Party to advertise on television its recent policy document, he could be assured of Government office for many years to come?

BBC (Programme Content)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if, in the light of the interview conducted on "24 Hours" with a felon convicted of spying in Dorset and of the anger caused to loyal Portland people, he will under Clause 13(4) direct that the British Broadcasting Corporation does not publicise or reward spies at a time when they are trying to sell their memoirs.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. Clause 13(4) of the Licence and Agreement is a general reserve power. It would not be appropriate to use it in the case of a particular programme. The content of this or any other programme is solely the responsibility of the board of governors.

Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that loyal Portland dockyard workers, some of whom are at present in the Lobby, have been offered by the Government a wage rise of £1·50 a week? Is it not surprising that other Portland dockyard workers, among whom this spy worked, are indignant that he receives a large reward for his memoirs and that thereafter in peak hours the British Broadcasting Corporation advertises and publicises those memoirs? Does not this cause indignation? Why should the British Broadcasting Corporation advertise treachery? Does my right hon. Friend share that indignation?

Sir J. Eden: The first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service. With regard to the expression of views about the individual concerned in the Question, I wholeheartedly share the castigations that my hon. Friend directed against him. I think that everyone in the House will be hostile towards a man who has already sold his conscience to a foreign Power and now seems to be trying to make capital out of it. But the matter of programme content is not for me.

Mr. Dempsey: Is not the Minister aware that the time is overdue when the


British Broadcasting Corporation should be told to stop upgrading such notorious rascality, which it is doing in a case such as this? Is it not time that the BBC was told that it existed because it is maintained by decent British taxpayers and that the media should not be used for morbid sensationalism, in which the BBC indulges at present?

Sir J. Eden: I am sure that the BBC will not fail to notice the firm expression of view by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend. No doubt it is shared by all hon. Members.

Miss Fookes: Would it not be more to the point if it were forbidden for anyone to gain from such advertising of his misdeeds at the source rather than to put the onus on the BBC or the Press?

Sir J. Eden: There is the fact that a certain publication was reviewed in the newspapers and media other than the BBC. What my hon. Friend asks raises much wider issues.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Will the Minister accept that whilst we on this side of the House do not like the notion of people such as the man mentioned appearing—or, indeed, others such as leaders of the IRA; some of us do not like that either—nevertheless it is the responsibilty of the broadcasting authority and it is certainly not a power that we would wish the Minister to use?

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will, under Article 18(2) of the British Broadcasting Corporation Charter, direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to publish in its annual reports particulars of the financial rewards paid by the corporation to convicted persons for services to the corporation connected with their crimes.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. King: If my right hon. Friend cannot direct, could he not, with that tact and discretion which always distinguishes him, represent to the governors that if sums are to continue to be paid out to spies and criminals—and many of us think that such payments are against the public interest—those of us who pay the the licence fee should at least know how much is paid?

Sir J. Eden: It would not be necessary for me to take the action my hon. Friend enjoins upon me, because I understand that the board of governors are assiduous readers of Hansard.

Telephone Exchange Equipment

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what steps he has taken in relation to the reorganisation of his Department designed to reduce manufacturers' delays in providing exchange equipment; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: The progressing of its contractors' deliveries is a matter for the Post Office. I have, however, appointed a special adviser, Mr. Robin Hutton, who wil lassist me in a variety of industrial and financial matters affecting the Post Office.

Mr. Molloy: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform Mr. Hutton that a great part of the schedules, programmes and intentions of Post Office engineers is frustrated, and often vitiated, because of inordinate delays in the provision of equipment by private contractors, and that much of the opprobrium which is vented on the Post Office ought properly to be vented on the private contractors who fail to make their proper contribution to the Post Office engineering staff?

Sir J. Eden: The contractors concerned, together with the Post Office, are doing their very best to improve on the delivery of some of this equipment which has contributed to the delays.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My right hon. Friend puzzles me a little by his answer. He says that he has appointed someone to advise him, yet this is a matter for the Post Office. What is this adviser to do? How can he effectively improve the situation?

Sir J. Eden: Amongst other things, the adviser will be bringing his expertise from the world of banking to extend the experience of my Department in such matters as the approval of Post Office investment programmes, the appraisal of corporate plans and the setting of financial objectives.

Sub-Post Offices (Closure)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many sub-post offices were closed from 1st January to the latest available date, following relocation of head post offices.

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office tells me that one such office was closed during the first six months of this year.

Mr. Bidwell: Although it is appreciated that the Minister's responsibilities are not exactly directly involved in local Post Office facilities nowadays, will he undertake personally to look at the situation which seems to be arising consequent upon the relocation of the head post office in South all High Street and the planned subsequent closure of sub-post offices, particularly that in the High Street which, according to local residents, is likely to cause considerable hardship, particularly to old people living in the area?

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that this is not directly a matter for me. Therefore, I must tell him that the nature and scale of the counter services provided in a given locality are management matters for the Post Office and he would be right to pursue his inquiries direct with the Post Office.

Official Paid Envelopes

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what payment was made to the Post Office for mail sent in official paid envelopes during the last 12 months; and what was the revenue derived from all mail during this period.

Sir J. Eden: In 1970–71 about £22 million and £295 million, respectively.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for those figures. Will he confirm that the amount of mail being sent through official paid envelopes is increasing rapidly? As the cost of the postal service to the consumer necessarily rises because it is a labour-intensiveservice that is provided, would it not be a good thing strictly to control the amount of mail allowed to be sent through official envelopes?

Sir J. Eden: Government Departments, like everyone else, pay their postage bills

at the normal tariffs. Therefore, it is an important part of the Post Office's business. The question that my hon. Friend has asked is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister to the Civil Service Department.

Mr. John Hall: Does the figure mentioned by my right hon. Friend include the amount represented by the prepaid postal envelopes provided for Members of Parliament, many of which finish up in the waste paper basket?

Sir J. Eden: It includes Members' correspondence. I did not follow whether the correspondence went into the waste paper basket before Members had sent it or afterwards.

Local Radio

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in what year he expects a local radio station to be operative in the County of Essex.

Sir J. Eden: So far I have announced locations for 26 stations; it is too early to say where the further stations will be or when they will open.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that of all the home counties Essex has the fastest growing population and that the residents of Essex feel little in common with Ipswich or London, which so far are the closest stations? In the light of these circumstances, will my right hon. Friend make representations to the IBA with a view to having a commercial broacasting station set up in this county as soon as possible?

Sir J. Eden: The IBA hopes to provide up to 60 stations. I have named only the first 26. I am sure that the authority will wish to take account of the claims of localities in Essex.

Mr. Mark Hughes: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he has made a decision on the future of British Broadcasting Corporation Local Radio, Durham; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: I have authorised the BBC to close down Durham local radio and to replace it by a local radio station at Carlisle. There will continue to be an active BBC studio working in Durham. When the changeover is complete, 20


BBC local radio stations will be better arranged to serve English listeners.

Mr. Hughes: Obviously, I can scarcely welcome that announcement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the decision to close what started as an experimental station in no way reflects on the quality and work of the staff engaged there? Secondly, will he understand that it would have been very unacceptable to the people of Durham had it not been for the strong claims of the people and area around Carlisle?

Sir J. Eden: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision has nothing to do with the quality of the service. It arises directly from the fact that the Radio Durham area is wholly overlapped by BBC Radio Newcastle and BBC Radio Teesside, which can equally well provide services for the Durham area. That is why the change has been made, to provide a better coverage over the whole of England.

BBC (Broadcasts by Outside Bodies)

Mr. Carter: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will list the provisions of the Charter and Licence and Agreement which enable bodies, in addition to Government Departments, to broadcast through the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Sir J. Eden: There are no such provisions.

Mr. Carter: That reply has somewhat stumped me. Will the Minister nevertheless agree that the provisions under which the BBC operates are now being blatantly undermined by commercial organisations which are making a considerable business out of the display of temporary advertisements at venues and events covered by the BBC, thus enabling hundreds of thousands of pounds of virtually free advertising to be obtained? Should not something be done to put a stop to this practice?

Sir J. Eden: That is another question which has been discussed in the House. I have no doubt that the BBC and other broadcasting interests will have taken note of what was said then.

Broadcasting (Election Candidates)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether

regulations restricting candidates broadcasting during elections will apply to all new local radio stations; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: The law will apply to IBA radio just as it does to all other broadcasts.

Broadcasting Services (European and Home)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received in the past month to increase radio services to Eastern Europe; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many British Broadcasting Corporation local radio stations will be allowed to broadcast on medium wave; when such transmissions will begin; and whether he is satisfied that they will be consistent with British obligations under the Copenhagen Agreement.

Sir J. Eden: The only request made has been in respect of the service to Albania. I have, however, authorised the BBC to change its medium frequency dispositions in order to give the external services one more channel to Europe and to provide some of the medium frequency back-up for the BBC and IBA local radio stations. This will be achieved partly by cutting out the regional Radio 4 programme variations in England and so reducing the number of frequencies needed; partly by withdrawing one of the medium frequencies used in some places for Radio 3. The BBC tells me that it may start local radio MF transmissions in September.
The Government have no intention of departing from the Copenhagen Convention.

Mr. Judd: Does the Minister appreciate that the BBC has an outstanding record of objectivity in these services, which are greatly appreciated by those who are able to listen to them in the East? Will he do everything possible, in consultation with the BBC, to ensure that there is similar coverage to non-democratic countries in Western Europe? Will he consult other Ministers to ensure that any governmental support to Radio


Liberty or Radio Free Europe in the corporation's future programmes will also be on condition that it extends its services to non-democratic countries in Western Europe as well as to Eastern Europe?

Sir J. Eden: The extent of the BBC's external services is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but the two channels which will now become available will allow for separate transmissions to East and West Europe.

Mr. Whitehead: The services provided by the BBC external service and BBC local radio respectively are much esteemed and in so far as they will be strengthened the Minister's announcement will be welcomed. Will the back-up facilities to be provided for local radio be for all the BBC local radio stations and will those facilities be available by at least the same time as the competing commercial radio stations come on the air?

Sir J. Eden: I indicated in my reply that the BBC hopes to start local radio broadcasting on MF in September so that those stations will be considerably in advance of the IBA local stations. I cannot say whether all will start at the same time but the intention will be to provide MF back-up for all 20.

Mr. Spence: On the subject of improving local BBC radio services, will my right hon. Friend the Minister say what his intentions are for the power output of the Sheffield local radio station?

Sir J. Eden: Both the Sheffield and the Leeds stations will have medium frequency transmissions as a result of what I have just announced. This therefore will improve the service to those areas.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Does all this mean that the Minister has now completed his planning of frequencies and will he be publishing his conclusions so that we can study them in the House?

Sir J. Eden: My answer will be reported in Hansard and the hon. Member will have an opportunity to look at it in greater detail. I apologise that it must have appeared somewhat complicated as I read it.

Television Reception (Derbyshire)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications

if he will make further funds available to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the installation of booster stations in Derbyshire so that the public can receive 625-line transmissions, which they are at present denied.

Sir J. Eden: I am sorry that there is nothing I can add to the replies I gave my hon. Friend on 19th April and 10th May.—[Vol. 835, c. 488; Vol. 836, c. 361.]

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not apologise to my right hon. Friend for returning to the subject because many people in my constituency are becoming extremely angry that they cannot receive this type of broadcast. Existing broadcasts on 405 lines are appalling. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to push the BBC forward, if necessary with technical help, personnel or equipment, so that the corporation can complete the booster stations not only for Derbyshire but for all rural areas as quickly as possible, and at any rate sooner than the end of 1973?

Sir J. Eden: I understand why my hon. Friend presses the point and I accept that the situation causes disquiet to him and to many of his constituents. Nine per cent, of the total population of this country are unable to receive BBC2, but to improve services to those who are in The Peak park area, for example, would require a further 11 stations. I have put to the BBC a proposal for improvement on its programme for UHF coverage and it is considering it.

Telephone Installation (Handicapped Persons)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the average waiting period for the installation of a telephone for a physically handicapped person, following a request for such installation by a local authority.

Sir J. Eden: This is a matter for the Post Office which tells me that this information is not available.

Mr. Davis: Will the Minister indicate why the information is not available? Is no research done into the matter? Is he not aware that this is a very real need for handicapped people and that further information should be made available to the House? Some


councils, such as Richmond, show a grotesque indifference to the needs of the handicapped, whereas my council in Hackney has provided 150 such telephones.

Sir J. Eden: The information is not available because applicants are not asked for information about their personal circumstances. If those circumstances are brought to the attention of the Post Office I know that it will give them the most sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Marten: Cannot the Post Office provide a sentence on the application form asking people who are disabled to indicate the fact with a cross? Will my right hon. Friend suggest that to the Post Office?

Sir J. Eden: I will draw the suggestion to the attention of the Post Office.

Mr. Golding: These applications are different from those of normal subscribers in that bills are paid by the local authority under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Surely statistics could be compiled of the time taken to provide these people with the service.

Sir J. Eden: The local authority function is slightly different. Local authorities have a duty to provide telephones and any necessary special equipment for handicapped persons who are eligible under Section 2(1)(h) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, but the Question refers to the generality of applications.

Sir R. Cary: Two or three times I have had occasion to apply for the installation of a telephone for disabled persons and I have been grateful for the promptitude with which the staff has been able to help.

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.

Welsh Language Broadcasts

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will allocate a very high frequency channel to broadcast programmes in the Welsh language in addition to the local commercial radio channel.

Sir J. Eden: BBC Radio Wales with considerable Welsh language content is

already transmitted on VHF and the IBA's stations in Wales will broadcast on both VHF and MF. It will be for the authority to decide whether and how much Welsh language content there should be in Welsh local station programmes.

Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a strong demand in Wales for an all-Welsh television service? Would not the concession of an all-Welsh radio service be a useful experimental prelude to an all-Welsh television service? Does my right hon. Friend realise that it will be a very welcome concession to the minority who are concerned about the survival of the Welsh language?

Sir J. Eden: Having had the privilege of attending a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on this subject I am aware that even in Wales it is a highly controversial matter.

Television Licence Fee

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what plans he has now made to extend reduced television licence fees to all retired people.

Sir J. Eden: It has never been the policy of any Government to grant cheap licences to all retirement pensioners. As I said on 28th June in reply to the Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), to reduce the licence fee to a nominal £1 per annum for pensioners would cost about £22 million a year. I have however decided to amend the terms of the old persons' homes licence so that it will extend not only to the old person himself but also to other members of his family living with him in the eligible accommodation. This change takes effect from today.—[Vol. 839, c. 339.]

Mr. Marten: I am sure that those who are affected by the change will be deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend for having done away with this curious provision. Now that he has started the ball rolling will he keep up the good work and perhaps consider granting some relief not to all old-age pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has suggested and to which my right


hon. Friend referred in his reply, but merely to those old-age pensioners who are on supplementary benefit, because the cost of the licence once a year to those people is very great?

Sir J. Eden: Widening the scope of any remission of the requirement to pay licence fee is, as my hon. Friend knows, the subject matter of a broad inquiry which I have initiated. My hon. Friend will be aware that the cost of his proposal would be of the order of £8 million a year.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Minister let me thank him quite sincerely for taking this action after the many letters I have sent to him? My constituent at Worksop who has a handicapped son living with her will be very grateful. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to place in post offices a list of the rules and regulations for pensioners pointing out who is entitled to a cheap licence and who is not? Such a step would clear up a great deal of misunderstanding.

Sir J. Eden: I will consider the suggestion and I am grateful to the hon. Member for having brought to my attention in the first place a particular case which enabled me to take the action I have announced today.

Mr. John Hall: I join hon. Members on both sides in welcoming this real but small concession. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling of unfairness among many old-age pensioners that some of them living in certain types of accommodation are able to get cheap licences while others cannot? Is he looking at this matter in the course of this inquiry?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware of the feelings mentioned by my hon. Friend. One way of overcoming them would be to remove the existing concession which has led to the present anomalous situation but I cannot accept that that is what I would be counselled to do.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: While I welcome this small step forward, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to help the House by giving us a definition of what he means by "eligible households" and an indication of how many people are involved? I am sure I speak for many hon. Members when I say that to deal

with the problem in a piecemeal fashion does not get to the heart of it. We feel that with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the right hon. Gentleman should propose a solution to the whole problem in the very near future.

Sir J. Eden: I accept that this will probably affect only a small number of people, because it will affect only those persons who are dependent upon retired people living in accommodation specifically designed for elderly persons which has a centrally-provided warden service and which therefore comes within the definition of "eligible accommodation".

Mr. Marks: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether partial refund of licence fee is made when viewers convert from colour to monochrome receivers.

Sir J. Eden: No. But refunds are allowed when, for whatever reason, a licence holder gives up using his set when his need for a licence has not exceeded 28 days.

Mr. Marks: I appreciate that such cases may be rare, but people sometimes convert from colour to monochrome—for example, when they retire and cannot maintain their colour sets or when they become unemployed. Is it not grossly unfair that a person should have to pay more when he converts to colour but gets no credit when he reverts to monochrome?

Sir J. Eden: The difficulty is that there are about 17 million licences in force and there are many reasons why refunds could be claimed. Once we set off along the road the hon. Gentleman suggests, it becomes a very costly operation to administer.

Broadcasting (Review)

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will establish a committee of inquiry into the future of broadcasting.

Sir J. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 28th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and the hon.


Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).—[Vol. 839, c. 1425.]

Mr. Morris: Has not the right hon. Gentleman observed the recent speech by the Director-General of the BBC to the distinguished members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in which he indicated that the BBC would welcome the establishment of a committee of inquiry to consider the future of broadcasting, in so far as it would give the BBC an opportunity to answer the charges and criticisms made here at Westminster and elsewhere about the BBC's reporting policy? The Director-General also indicated that the BBC believes in public accountability. Why will not the right hon. Gentleman give it the opportunity to put that belief into practice by establishing a committee of inquiry?

Sir J. Eden: I had observed the speech in question. Whether or not there should be an inquiry is a matter for the Government to determine.

BBC (Chairman of Governors)

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now name the new chairman of the governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Sir J. Eden: I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis on 12th July.—[Vol. 840, c. 388–9.]

Mr. Price: Why not?

Sir J. Eden: Because I am not yet in a position to announce a decision.

Ministerial Responsibilities

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will list his statutory responsibilities for posts and telecommunications.

Sir J. Eden: My statutory functions are derived mainly from the Post Office Act, 1969. As the list is very long I will send it to the hon. Member. I will also place a copy in the Library.

Mr. Molloy: I shall be very interested to receive it from the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware, however, that very often in answer to questions he has said that this is a matter for the Post Office and that many hon. Members and the

general public are under the impression that he, too, has something to do with the Post Office when we ask him questions dealing with issues related to social security? I can see the complexity here, but does not the Minister agree that there should be a closer relationship between his Department and that of the Secretary of State for Social Services to give proper answers to the questions we ask?

Sir J. Eden: I must admit that I shared the general public's view of the matter before I got to where I am. The fact remains that there is a great difference between detailed and general responsibility.

Local Relay Television

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will publish details of the contract for Greenwich Cablevision Limited, enabling it to provide experimental local relay television programmes up to 1976.

Sir J. Eden: I have placed in the Library copies of the licences I have issued to Greenwich Cablevision Limited, which is responsible for the relay system, and to Greenwich Cablecasts Limited, which provides the programmes, enabling them jointly to provide the experimental service in Greenwich.

Mr. Whitehead: I seem to be welcoming all the right hon. Gentleman's statements today. Does he agree that it would be a good thing if, as a matter of routine in the future, all these experimental licences, which we welcome, were published in precisely the same way as his predecessor recommended should be the system in future for franchises under the IBA for commercial radio?

Sir J. Eden: I do not know that I quite understand the full import of the hon. Gentleman's question. The licence agreement in question is for the first of the experimental stations, of which there are to be six in all. I do not believe it will be necessary to repeat the performance on each occasion.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the contracts include a requirement on the relay service to transmit ministerial and party political broadcasts simultaneously along with the national networks?

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. This is a limited local programme experiment.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: In view of the growth of this type of cable service, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it to be a suitable subject for inquiry by a broadcasting commission?

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. This is an experiment which has already been launched. It will proceed until 1976, and I am sure it is right that we should see the outcome of the experiment.

Telecommunications Services

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now publish a White Paper on the future of telecommunication services.

Sir J. Eden: Not at present.

Mr. Golding: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us rather than the newspapers what will be in that White Paper when it is published? Is he prepared to make a statement now on the financial study referred to in the Sunday Times article last weekend?

Sir J. Eden: I cannot refer to newspaper articles, nor am I responsible for their content. No decision has been taken about any White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Ministry of Defence

Mr. Jessel: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are employed by the Ministry of Defence; and what were the figures for comparable Ministries in 1942, 1952 and 1962.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The total number of United Kingdom-based staff employed by the Ministry of Defence on 1st April, 1972, was 275,000. The totals for 1st April, 1942, 1952 and 1962 for the Service and Supply Departments were 805,000 in 1942, 435,000 in 1952, and 364,000 in 1962.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures show that at the height of the Second World War there was about one civil servant to every five or six members of the Armed Forces but that

now the ratio is about three civil servants to every four members of the Armed Forces? Does he think that these proportions are as they should be and will he see what he can do to bring about a gradual reduction in the number of civil servants employed in the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend raises matters which should be directed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Suffice it to say that the proportion of serving personnel to civilians has improved since we have been in office, something to be associated with periods of Conservative rule. I should add that the fall in the number of United Kingdom civil servants employed in the Ministry of Defence since we have been in office is 10,386.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the improvement in the last two years?

Mr. Baker: I have just given figures for the Ministry of Defence. There has been a drop of 10,386 in the number of civil servants employed in the Ministry of Defence.

Government Departments (Dispersal)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he hopes to complete his study of the decentralisation of office work from Whitehall; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 4th July, he expects to receive recommendations by the end of the year and will report the outcome to the House.

Mr. Dalyell: May we expect action or is this simply Governmental window-dressing?

Mr. Baker: The House can certainly expect action. The study is the most elaborate study that has even been undertaken on dispersal by any Government. It involves creating a pattern of communication for each Department and balancing the loss in the communication with the gain in the regions of employing resources that would not otherwise be employed. This is a very elaborate study. Several Governments have come to see how we are doing it and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the


House that there will be action based upon the recommendations later this year.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if the review of the location of Civil Service work has yet been completed.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As I told the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) earlier, recommendations are expected by the end of the year.

Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the committee was set up to examine this matter some parts of the country have been granted assisted area status, including large areas in Lancashire? Is he satisfied that the committee is bearing this in mind, and will the Government bear it in mind in considering its report?

Mr. Baker: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Government have directed quite a lot of jobs to the North-West Region. It has received nearly 20 per cent. of dispersals since 1970 and is due to receive over 6 per cent. of dispersals planned but not yet implemented.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the claims of East Anglia are not overlooked by the Government as other Departments have done in the development of industry in the regions?

Mr. Baker: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I was in Norwich only the other day, looking at Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which was dispersed to Norwich and which is my responsibility. I was impressed by how happy the staff were working there, after having previously lived and worked in London.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since this review began, the problem of imbalance between residential accommodation and office accommodation in London has become much more widely realised? Will he assure the House that he will do his best to get out of London Departments which do not need to be in his constituency or mine? Will he also put pressure, where possible, on the nationalised industries?

Mr. Baker: The nationalised industries are not my responsibility. I can

give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are looking at all Government Departments. The review we are undertaking is looking at the 90,000 jobs in the central management of the Civil Service to see to what extent these can be dispersed.

Mr. Pentland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all of us representing the North-East constituencies are anxiously awaiting the report of this committee? Will he give us an assurance that, despite the fact that we have no ministerial representation in the Cabinet, this will not deprive our part of the country of favourable consideration?

Mr. Baker: I am not claiming that I am the Minister responsible for the North-East, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the claims of the North-East are being examined with the care and scrutiny with which we examine the other assisted areas and other regions of the country.

Civil Servants (Gifts)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the rule governing civil servants and their acceptance of gifts from persons engaged on Government financed contracts.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: A civil servant must not without permission accept any gift or reward from any member of the public or organisation with whom he is brought into contact by reason of his official duties.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman be quite certain that this rule is being obeyed? For instance, can he tell us how the Pottinger affair would have been disclosed unless there had been a bankruptcy case in Wakefield? Will he undertake to alert the Metropolitan Police and to enable it to cover the case of the building of the Ninewells Hospital in Dundee by Crudens and the association with that firm of two civil servants—one of whom is now dead and the other retired—who took high posts with Crudens?

Mr. Baker: The latter point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am aware that the hon. Member has received an anonymous letter on this matter. If he receives any


further information, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be pleased to see it. The police investigation is limited to the Poulson affair. If the other affair is involved, I am sure the police will extend inquiries to it. May I say one thing about gifts? When the Pottinger affair arose, I examined the precedents since the war. There have been virtually no precedents of senior civil servants accepting gifts. I hope that the disclosures of recent weeks will not create public disquiet about the Civil Service. The integrity and honesty of the British Civil Service, as the Daily Mirror leader said today, is the biggest asset of British public life.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In view of the denigration that is implied against the Civil Service generally through the way in which the last question was put by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), can my hon. Friend tell me whether the hon. Member raised this specific point in private before he sought all the publicity for this denigration through a Question in the House?

Mr. Baker: I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman has raised the point in private. I have seen comments on it in the Press.

Mr. Hamilton: I will raise a point of order on this matter after Question Time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sheldon: Since the British Civil Service enjoys the reputation of having a degree of integrity that is rightly admired throughout the world, and since there is a policy of increasing links between the Government and industry, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the rules of conduct are completely covered in view of these increasing contacts between Government and industry? Will he look into this problem to be sure that he is completely satisfied?

Mr. Baker: I am satisfied that the rules of conduct affecting serving civil servants in their relationship with industry are quite clear in Estacode. I have asked the Head of the Civil Service to look into the question of the rules under which former civil servants may take up posts in companies or industries with which they may have been concerned and to report to me.

Supply Estimates (Opposition Items)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service why under the heading of Personal Staff of Ministers is included the Opposition Chief Whip; and whether he will redesignate the headings of the Supply Estimates in future giving the estimates for the Opposition under their own sub-heading.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Opposition Chief Whip is paid from the Consolidated Fund. The footnote to the Organisation Table annexed to the Civil Service Departments Estimate refers to staff of the Opposition Chief Whip, and not to the Chief Whip himself. I see no reason to change this practice.

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it cannot be right that we should have under the list of the Prime Minister's personal staff the Opposition Chief Whip? [Laughter.]Neither he nor anyone else would like that. Can the hon. Gentleman arrange in future Estimates to have the Opposition re-designated under their own list because we would rather not have them contaminated by the Government?

Mr. Baker: Lest the hon. Gentleman gets hold of the wrong end of the stick, perhaps I should explain that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Opposition Chief Whip are paid from the Consolidated Fund, so that it should not be thought that they are on the Government's payroll. However, the staff of the Opposition Chief Whip are on my Vote. It is one of the burdens I have to bear. While I am responsible for their salaries, I am not responsible for their conduct or efficiency.

Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would facilitate the business of the House and save a good deal of time if the Opposition Chief Whip was on the staff of the Prime Minister?

Mr. David Steel: As a matter of convenience, can the hon. Gentleman give us the total cost to the public of maintaining the official Opposition, in salaries and staff?

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me what is the total financial cost


rather than the cost in effectiveness, I would be pleased to answer the question if he put it down.

General Administrative Expenses

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service why the General Administrative Expenses for 1972–73 in his ministerial Department are expected to increase to £1,054,866 from £756,083 in 1971–72.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Comparing published estimates, the increase for General Administrative Expenses of £299,000 over 1971–72 is due partly to higher prices covering such items as postage, telephones, travelling, cleaning and canteens and the remainder to an increase in the level of activity and the wider responsibilities of my Department.

Mr. Lewis: What an astounding reply! First of all the Prime Minister and the Government promised to cut prices at a stroke and now we are having the excuse that the reason why this has gone up by 25 per cent, is that prices have gone up. Are we not getting two broken promises? Is it not time that the Government at least implemented one of their promises, either to cut prices at a stroke or to cut the cost of the Civil Service, one or the other?

Mr. Baker: The cost of the Civil Service is not involved here. The figures the hon. Gentleman is comparing are very wide-spaced. The estimates for 1971–72 were prepared in October, 1970. I should also point out that these figures include, as a result of the way in which we present accounts, certain capital costs of a non-recurring nature.

Mr. Ashton: The Minister mentioned the cost of cleaning. Is he aware that since the Civil Service has put cleaning out to contract there has been a great deal of exploitation taking place among lady cleaners, and will he have a look at some of these firms which are strongly anti-trade union and pay terrible wages for long hours? Would he try to get some form of industrial relations in this business?

Mr. Baker: The exploitation of which I read was taking place in the early hours of the morning. I have asked for a report on what I read in the Press over the week-

end. It is a matter for individual Departments to make their own cleaning arrangements.

SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The report of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work has been published today and copies are available in the Vote Office. I should like to express the Government's gratitude to Lord Robens and his Committee for their careful examination of this difficult subject.
The report recommends the unification within a single comprehensive framework of legislation of the main Statutes bearing on safety and health at work and certain aspects of the protection of the public, and also the establishment under my broad policy direction of a national Safety and Health Authority to replace the present range of separate administrative arrangements. The main central inspectorates enforcing the present legislation would be brought together within the Authority, and protection would be extended to almost all people at work.
These and other recommendations are designed to create a framework within which employers and work-people jointly can achieve a more self-regulating system for securing safety and health at work, in which the inspectorates can be used more effectively in assisting employers and work-people as well as concentrating more effectively on particular serious problems, and in which statutory regulations can be kept as simple and up-to-date as possible.
The recommendations are far-reaching and the report will obviously require careful study by all concerned, both inside and outside Government. Nevertheless, the Government are convinced that reform is now a matter of considerable urgency in an area of such great importance to all employees, and it is their intention to take early action towards achieving the broad objectives of the report. I am therefore giving urgent consideration to the specific recommendations of the Committee. In the first place there will be consultation with the CBI, TUC, local authorities and others concerned about


how best to achieve these broad objectives. I hope this preliminary consultation will be completed by the autumn so that intensive work can then begin on the preparation of a Bill.

Mr. Prentice: The House will need time to study these recommendations in detail, but it is clear that Lord Robens and his colleagues have produced a major report on this matter of very great value. My own first reaction to what I know of the proposals so far is that they are likely to command very wide support.
I welcome that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement in which he said he recognised that reform is now a matter of urgency. Would he agree that this urgency is underlined by the continued disgracefully high figures for industrial accidents and confirm that the 1971 figure was over 268,000 notified accidents? I believe it was a little lower than the figure for the preceding year, but it is a good deal higher than it was a decade earlier, and it is a figure which represents a great deal of human suffering and an enormous loss of productive time far in excess of time lost in industrial disputes. Would the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the urgency of the matter is also evidenced by the fact that we are now facing new hazards due to new industrial processes as illustrated, for example, by the poisoning at Avon mouth, and that there are other risks which may be occurring for work-people in the period ahead and that, therefore, there is need for a system by which the new risks can be identified and controlled quickly?
As to consultation, I was impressed by what the right hon. Gentleman said about doing it quickly, but would he not agree that the actual consultations and discussions which the Robens Committee has had have been themselves a form of consultation, in that the organisations mainly involved have had ample chance to give their evidence, and that he and his Department must be aware already of the major issues involved? Although I would not speak against consultation, the whole process can be speeded up for that reason.
We shall, clearly, want a debate on this matter, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this point with the Leader of the House. I would suggest that the debate might take place

very soon after the recess, so that the House of Commons itself is part of the consultative process before the legislative proposals are finalised. I would suggest to him that the Government might find some time for the Third Reading of the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Bill has passed through most of its stages in this House but is now held up by a small group of reactionaries among the back benchers on his own side of the House? The Government's good intentions in these matters could be confirmed by the Government's providing whatever time is needed for the Third Reading of that Bill.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman's statement referred to the centralisation of the inspectorate. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the size of the inspectorate is one of the keys to enforcement, and, although there has been some improvement in the number of inspectors in recent years, will the Government bear in mind the evidenece for the need now to increase the numbers, training and variety of the inspectorate without waiting for consultation on other aspects of the Robens Report?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope the whole House and, indeed, all concerned will welcome the great work which Lord Robens and his Committee have done, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for it. It is, as he says, a major report of great value. I agree on the urgency. As I said, we hope to complete our consultations in the autumn, and, considering the number of people involved and the width of the interests concerned, that will be operating fairly quickly.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the degree of consultation which has already taken place through the work of the Robens Committee. It is certainly not the Government's intention to throw open the whole subject again for debate, which has, after all, been going on since about 1967, in general discussion of these problems, but we are to consult about the new specific proposals contained in the report.
As to the request about other legislation which may be before the House, I


think it would be wiser to wait and see what the whole of the consultation on the details will produce. I certainly wish to see the TUC and CBI consulted, because, with regard to enforcement—to take up another point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—this, he will see from the report itself, is a major factor in which as far as possible industry should be helped by joint consultation within industry, between management and work people through the unions, to concentrate on prevention of accidents, and this is the emphasis which the report has given so as to enable the enforcement side of the inspectorate to operate, as I said in my statement, more effectively. While these proposals are being put into force it is our intention to maintain the efficiency of the other part of the inspectorate, as is the responsibility of my Department.
The complexity of the problems—the last matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—is, indeed, one of the new difficulties which everyone is facing in this field, and is in itself a powerful argument for the unification which Lord Robens recommended.

Mr. John Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report is widely welcomed, and will he accept that hon. Members on this side of the House are also anxious for speedy legislation so that piecemeal legislation by way of Bills introduced regularly by hon. Gentlemen opposite will not in future be required?

Mr. Macmillan: I assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to get specific proposals ready for the House and to produce legislation as soon as we can.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that paragraph 70 of the report speaks of the necessity to place a statutory obligation on employers to consult their work-people? Since a Bill to bring that about has been carried on Second Reading by the House on three occasions in the last two years and is blocked only by a tiny number of his hon. Friends, will be consider asking his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide a few moments of parliamentary time for Third Reading so that we can take that legislative burden from a Government who are not over-endowed with legislative time?

Mr. Macmillan: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but with a subject involving as many Government Departments as this, with emphasis on co-operation between management and workpeople and the possibility of an extra burden being put on employers and extra responsibilities on employees, I think that the statutory duty of consultation should be left to be dealt with in the major legislation proposed.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any future legislation will cover Her Majesty's Establishments such as Royal Naval Establishments and Dockyards?

Mr. Macmillan: That is a matter which will have to be discussed. When my hon. Friend reads the report, she will see that it proposes the extension of provisions for safety and health at work to as many work-people as possible.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the increasing complexity and incidence of industrial disease as opposed to accidents, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what part, if any, the Department of Health and Social Security will play in the new scheme? Will he also give the House some idea of how the new scheme will be financed?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Lady is a little premature. These are proposals for safety and health at work which are put forward by a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Robens. They have yet to be discussed within Government and with interests outside Government. The hon. Lady has raised questions which should be raised during those consultations, and on which after those consultations have taken place, I hope to inform the House. I think the hon. Lady will understand that if I attempt to be specific on any one individual part of the report as opposed to another, I shall be guilty of prejudging the consultations and discussions which will take place.

Mr. Redmond: Will my right hon. Friend accept from one who was a member of the Standing Committee on the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill that we like the principle of the Bill but do not like the detail and would like to have it


improved? Will he also accept that, now that we have the report, we shall press for early legislation so that the whole subject can be consolidated and properly dealt with? Does the report mention apathy? Apathy is surely the enemy of safety in industry. No one is interested in avoiding accidents until an accident happens, when everybody gets excited about it. Does the report make any recommendations for overcoming that problem?

Mr. Macmillan: The whole approach of the Robens Committee has been to emphasise the joint responsibility of management and work-people in co-operating to achieve safety and health at work. Of course there is the problem of apathy to overcome, but there is the problem of apathy in safety on the roads or, indeed in safety in the home. The number of people who try to mend fuses without switching off the electricity is remarkable. This is a matter which requires comprehensive legislation. There are conflicting interests between environmental and interior considerations, which have to be resolved, and certain problems, particularly with newer dangers, which require continuing study, and we must provide the proper framework for that.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: To what extent does the report touch on an occupational health service? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, pending legislation next year on the reform of the National Health Service in England and Wales, it might be necessary to have the kind of debate asked for by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) to clarify this, because legislation on this subject affecting Scotland is already going through the House?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I am aware of the problem. Questions of occupational health are separate from the questions dealt with in the report, but we have certain proposals coming forward on that and there will be an opportunity of discussing them later.

Mr. Pardoe: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this immensely important report will be welcomed on both sides of the House. Will he give an assurance that in his negotiations and discussions on the report with interests out-

side the House two matters will be considered: first, the need for a national statutory level for toxic materials in places of work and factories; secondly—although prevention is better than cure—the necessity for a disability income so as to avoid the unseemly haggle that occurs about whether a person is suffering from an industrial disease or merely a disease?

Mr. Macmillan: Both questions raised by the hon. Gentleman are outside the terms of reference of the report.

CIVIL SERVANTS (GIFTS)

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think this is an appropriate moment for me to raise my point of order arising from the supplementary question on Question 37 put by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who now appears to be asleep. He cast aspersions on my activities in recent weeks in connection with the Poulson affair.
I want to make it clear that no one in the House, least of all myself, would make aspersions on the integrity of our Civil Service, and I have never done so. I received an anonymous letter about the Ninewells Hospital, and I ascertained that the facts contained in that letter were accurate. I accordingly disclosed the contents of the letter to the Press, and I sent the letter to the Leader of the House asking for the matter to be investigated. I received a letter from him, dated 14th July, saying that the matter would be investigated. I have nothing to apologise for in the course I took.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did cast aspersions on the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, aspersions which are well deserved. If he had that knowledge from an anonymous letter he should have awaited the Minister's reply before making it public.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter on which the Standing Orders of the House bear.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) asked leave to put down a Private Notice Question today. He said that if I did not allow


the Private Notice Question he would move a Standing Order No. 9 application. That is a form of pressure on the Chair which is very undesirable. Under the Standing Order I should be entitled not to allow him to make his application. As this is the first time it has happened, however, I propose to allow him to make the application, but he must restrict himself strictly to the question why his Motion should have precedence over the business of the day.

Mr. McMaster: I realise, Mr. Speaker, as you have just said, that it would be totally wrong for me to seek in any way to exert pressure. I informed you quite clearly and in writing that, whether or not leave was given to ask a Private Notice Question, I would seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. If I have given an erroneous impression I should like to correct it and make it quite clear that I gave notice of my application whether or not leave was given for the Private Notice Question.
I seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss
the present situation in Northern Ireland in view especially of the meeting of leading members of the IRA with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others at a time when a criminal and illegal body led by these men is waging war against the citizens of Northern Ireland and against the security forces of the Crown with the utmost ferocity and viciousness and with a complete disregard for the criminal law of this country.
I urge you to grant this application, Mr. Speakers on the ground, first, that it is specific. It is not denied—and I am grateful for the help given to me by the Leader of the Opposition on this matter—that such a meeting was held yesterday at the same time as a soldier of the Crown was murdered in the Lenadoon Estate in Northern Ireland. Kingsman James Jones was shot dead and other soldiers have since been wounded in Northern Ireland.
I suggest that the matter is important. The violence in Northern Ireland is continuing and escalating. Death and destruction are occurring every day. No day passes in Ulster without further brutal murders being added to the existing long list. Citizens are being shot and blown to pieces, traps are being deliberately set

and property is being burnt and destroyed. The impression has been given that shooting and murder pay, otherwise nobody would wish to fly these men to England to have discussions with them.
I suggest the matter is urgent because the position of the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland—I remind the House that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and a responsibility of this House of Commons—is being seriously undermined. The citizens of Northern Ireland feel betrayed to find that Members of this House are not only discussing with the IRA the future of Northern Ireland but are discussing it with murderers, with men who are sworn enemies of the—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not go into the merits. He must make his argument on the ground that the House should have another debate on Northern Ireland in precedence over the business already fixed for today and tomorrow.

Mr. McMaster: I wish to make the application on the ground that, because of the meeting held yesterday and the fact that these members of the IRA—wanted men who, by their own admission, are implicated in this continuing series of murders—flew to England, they are escaping the ordinary processes of law since they are not answering for crimes to which they have been parties. This is contrary to the rule of law and is leading to a complete state of anarchy in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope I may be allowed to say this before you give your ruling. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) fairly referred to the fact that he and I had a conversation. The reason I intervened with the hon. Gentleman was that I heard about his intentions on this subject and I presumed that he would have to prove Government responsibility. I have never heard of a Standing Order No. 9 application being proposed in respect of any matter over which there is not Government responsibility. Since he would have to prove such governmental responsibility, he would have to prove Government compliance. I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have been moved to take this action by Press reports—


reports which are totally inaccurate—that the men concerned were flown over in a Royal Air Force plane. Just over an hour ago I gave instructions for a categorical denial of that statement to be issued to two London evening newspapers, at the same time making clear that the Government were not involved in this visit in any way, in regard to either transport or customs and immigration clearance. There was no invocation of Government aid. In view of the Press reports, it is only fair to make that clear.
Since the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter, it is only fair to make it clear that the Government, who have their difficulties in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, were not involved in any way. To that extent, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge my motives—and he referred to the death of one of my constituents this morning—I shall be happy to deal with it on any other appropriate occasion. However, I should be surprised to hear that we can deal with matters affecting the conduct of Members when there is no Government responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: As I have frequently pointed out to the House, this is a purely procedural decision for the Chair. I understand the strong feelings which exist about a very serious situation. What I have to decide is simply whether this application should take precedence over the business which has already been set down for today or tomorrow. I cannot give the application that precedence.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to the words which you addressed to the House immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) submitted his application under Standing Order No. 9? It might appear from what you said that the right of a Member under Standing Order No. 9 to put forward such a Motion was limited, or could be limited, by what he had or had not privately said to the Chair. I cannot believe that that can be so or that it could have been the intention of what you said. Might I respectfully submit that, after you have carefully considered what you have said this afternoon, you might wish to clear up the situation so that the situation in regard to the Standing Order and the rights of Members under it is left in no doubt?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was seeking to make clear the situation. The Standing Order says:
A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Mr. Speaker by twelve o'clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour.
I was simply indicating—and in view of what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, I take this as a hypothetical case—that if a Member says to Mr. Speaker "If you do not allow my Private Notice Question I shall when the time comes seek to move a Standing Order No. 9 application", I shall not regard that as "notice" under the terms of the Standing Order, and I will not accept it as such in future.

Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have couched two letters in a somewhat similar vein to you. If a Member writes a letter to you asking for permission to table a Private Notice Question, may he not then as a matter of courtesy say, "Depending on the result of that request, I may seek to raise the matter by a Standing Order No. 9 application"? I hope that this course is not now to be ruled out.

Mr. Speaker: I would not rule out the possibility of an hon. Member seeking to make an application for permission to move the Adjournment of the House in view of an answer given to a Private Notice Question. But the Chair must be protected from any kind of pressure on the lines that if Mr. Speaker does not allow a Private Notice Question there will be a Standing Order No. 9 application. Sometimes the threat is couched in terms which are not very attractive to the Chair.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate the point that Mr. Speaker should not be subjected to pressure, but surely a Member must take whatever course is open to him to pursue a particular matter. I remember approaching you about a Private Notice Question, and you rightly said that it would not be allowed. I then said that I would try to raise the matter by way of a Standing Order No. 9 application. This would appear to be a reasonable thing for any Member of the House to do. Surely it is our job and,


indeed, our responsibility if we think there is a matter of the gravest importance to be raised in the House, to pursue the matter in this way. I feel that your original remarks could have given the impression, though I am sure you did not mean to give it, that Members ought not to pursue what for a long time has been a legitimate practice.

Mr. Speaker: I have been very careful in view of what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, to put this forward as a hypothetical case, but I repeat that I am not prepared for an hon. Member to say to me "If you do not allow a Private Notice Question, I shall seek to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9."The Chair should not be put under this kind of threat. It is not desirable.

Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us will feel a little happier about your last remarks, but in regard to the previous replies to points of order I think you should reconsider the matter. This sort of situation is seen by back-benchers as an alternative way in which to proceed. If we regard a matter to be of such importance that it should be raised as quickly as possible in the House, then as a matter of courtesy we tend to say in a letter that if we cannot raise the matter in this way we shall seek to raise it in an alternative way. I cannot see how that is bringing undue pressure on the Speaker. Indeed, I do not know of any pressure ever succeeding on a Speaker. He is the irremovable force and back benchers are certainly not irresistible objects. We should like you to consider the position and to give a more formal definition of the situation; otherwise we feel that real difficulties will arise for back benchers.

Mr. Kaufman: May I put a further point to you, Mr. Speaker? Of course, any hon. Member who sought to put pressure on you in this way would be behaving a manner deleterious to his own prospects. But there is a problem which arises and which I should like to put to you. If an hon. Member comes to your office at 10 a.m. wishing to lodge notice of a Private Notice Question, he will not hear your ruling or decision until some time after noon. He may have it in mind

that if he fails to secure your permission to ask a Private Notice Question he would like to attempt to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 in order to air the matter that he wishes to raise. But two hours have intervened. During those two hours possibly another hon. Member with the same subject in mind has given notice not that he wishes to ask a Private Notice Question but that he intends to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9. In such a case the hon. Member who first had the subject in mind, because he has had to wait two hours for your decision, loses his opportunity to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9 because of your ruling on precedence in Standing Order No. 9 cases; namely, that the hon. Member who first gives notice has the right to raise the matter.

Mr. George Cunningham: May I add one more thought for your consideration, Mr. Speaker? May I remind you of an occasion six or nine months ago when I failed in an application under Standing Order No. 9 and in the course of your ruling you advised me that had I asked for a Private Notice Question very likely you would have granted it. On that basis therefore, on another occasion one would normally ask you for a Private Notice Question first. However in the light of what you said earlier, one would feel impeded from doing that. I hope that you will take that point into account.

Mr. Speaker: I will take all these matters into account and, if necessary, say something further about it on a later occasion. However, I repeat that the Chair cannot submit to the threat that if a Private Notice Question is not allowed a Standing Order No. 9 application will be moved which would be more trouble for the Chair. I cannot approve of that approach.

BILL PRESENTED

MARKETING OF TOBACCO PRODUCT

Mr. Laurie Pavitt, supported by Mr. John Parker, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Dr. Miller, Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, and Dr. Tom Stuttaford presented a Bill to regulate the advertising and marketing of tobacco products, and for


purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish private employment agencies.
Private employment agencies have been subjected to a great deal of adverse publicity recently, and most of it has concentrated on the practice whereby some agencies charge young girls fees to place them in holiday jobs overseas. Very often the jobs turn out to be quite different from those advertised, and, in my experience, the girls usually find it impossible to get back their money.
However, this Bill is to abolish all employment agencies. In the short time available to me I wish to concentrate on the wider questions, although it seems obvious that it ought to be illegal for all agencies to charge fees to employees and for any agency to place a young girl under 21 in a job overseas. I am concerned with the big bureaux. I have in mind people like the Brook Street Bureau, the Alfred Marks Bureau and the Conduit Bureau.
I suggest that there are three fundamental reasons why private employment agencies should be abolished. First, they represent a monstrous misuse of human and material resources. If any hon. Member doubts that he has only to walk along Victoria Street where in about 100 yards he will see no fewer than a dozen separate branch offices of these employment agencies, all doing much the same thing.
The second reason that I give for abolition is that private employment agencies exist to make a profit. For that reason, inevitably they have to resort to activities which are incompatible with the provision of a humane and efficient service.
The third reason which I give for abolition is that the existence of private employment agencies on any substantial scale makes it virtually impossible for us to create an efficient and comprehensive State employment service.
Private employment agencies have two basic functions. First, they employ staff known as "temps" who are hired out to employers for short periods. Secondly, they place staff in permanent jobs. In the time available to me I intend to concentrate on the second of those two activities.
At any one time an agency has a certain number of jobs on its books. To make money, it has to put people in those jobs. That means that it is forced to use high-powered sales techniques which to my mind are quite anti-social. Employers frequently complain that the interviewers are not well trained. My complaint is that, while many interviewers are not trained, those who are trained to be salesmen and not to be proper counsellors to help people find the jobs appropriate to them.
One example of high-powered sales techniques is phoney or misleading advertising. Recently a fashionable employment agency got on its books a vacancy for a trainee film producer with a film-producing company. The employer insisted that the employee be experienced. The agency advertised the job in the Evening Standard on a Friday omitting to say that applicants had to be experienced. The job was filled on the Friday. On the following Monday about 100 people went to the agency all wanting the job. The interviewers at the agency then had the task of selling them other jobs. That is what it is all about.
I heard about another example from an employee of one of the big bureaux. The practice is to put in the window of the branch particulars of jobs available. The best jobs are put in the window and only limited information is given. I was informed that after one job had gone the interviewer concerned wanted to remove the advertisement from the window. The supervisor would not allow him to do so. That card was bringing people into the shop, and it was the interviewer's task then to try to put applicants into other jobs.
This leads to the situation where people are put into jobs which are quite unsuitable for them, and a frequent complaint by employers is that people are sent from agencies who are quite unsuitable for the jobs with the result that something like a third of them leave within 10 weeks.
Why do employers insist on using agencies? The reason is that agencies flourish when there are staff shortages. They are able to attract articulate and skilled staff, and when there is a shortage many employers feel obliged to go to them. Many large employers are now stopping the use of agencies for these reasons. But, inevitably, in times of labour shortage agencies can corner some of the most highly skilled labour. The agencies, of course, have a vested interest in turning over staff.
However, precisely because the task of the interviewer is to fill vacancies as opposed to finding jobs suitable for people coming to the shop, they are not concerned with people who are unemployed and who have difficulty in getting jobs. A blatant example of the effect on people with difficulty in getting jobs is the attitude of many agencies to black people. There is no doubt that many large city firms and insurance companies use private employment agencies as a way of getting round the Race Relations Act. Anyone speaking to interviewers who have spent some time with big agencies will have no doubt about that.
It is worth mentioning in passing that this situation has been referred to in the two last reports of the Race Relations Board. Paragraph 61 of the 1970–71 report says:
The extent to which employment agencies adjust to unlawful discrimination is of course unknown, but, as we have indicated, there is no reason to suspect that it is not uncommon.
Paragraph 42 of the 1971–72 report says:
As last year, the majority of cases arose from allegations made by employees of private employment agencies.…A number of investigations was started on the basis of allegations made by two employees of a major employment agency. These resulted in opinions of discrimination being formed against 10 firms.
There is no doubt that these private employment agencies have flourished to a large extent because of the inadequacy of our State service. Everyone, I think, now accepts that the job-finding service must be separated from the unemployment benefit side. But the Governments proposals are hopelessly inadequate and seem almost to be designed to maintain private employment agencies and to push our State service into the market place

We want separate, attractive offices in our town centres with staff trained as counsellors, not high-powered salesmen whose only function is to put people in jobs for which they sometimes get a commission. Above all, we want all vacancies in an area to be registered with the State employment service. An employee must be able to visit the local Department of Employment office and see all the vacancies which exist in the area at the time. A whole variety of services could be provided by that one office: information about training in the area and a host of other matters.
The crucial point in this context is that as long as private employment agencies operate on a big scale they will be able to cream off the employees who find it easy to get jobs. They will attract the people who can go for the best-paid jobs. The State service will therefore be forced to cater for a disproportionate number of people who have difficulty in getting jobs. It will make it more difficult for us to get the new image and approach across that the new State employment service is not just for the unemployed but for everyone who is interested in a job.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this is a piece of doctrinaire socialism which does not relate to the real situation, I suggest they look at a recent OECD report which, among other things, draws attention to this fact:
Only in the United Kingdom and North America are private employment agencies organised for profit allowed to operate extensively.
I suggest that hon. Gentlemen should go and look at Sweden's excellent State employment service. I suggest they go to Germany, the Netherlands, and other Common Market countries and discover why those countries have found it necessary to abolish private employment agencies.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was remarkably improvident to suggest bringing forward the Bill. There seems to be a witch hunt on the benches opposite against private employment agencies. There was a Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) a few years ago which, even though the


Labour Party was in the majority, was defeated and not brought forward by the then Government. The National Board for Prices and Incomes was asked to investigate the problem, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were horrified to get a report which denied the silly allegations which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has been making, and pointed out what a valuable function the private employment agencies fulfil in the economy.
As the hon. Gentleman said, private employment agencies provide jobs for half the professional people in this country. In addition, they provide introductions to jobs for all the temporary staff in this country. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should abolish an industry which is making such a massive contribution to the employment and redeployment of people?
The private employment agencies do this without any delay. The hon. Gentleman asked us to inspect the scene in Sweden and the Common Market countries where there are no private employment agencies. After his travels the hon. Gentleman will discover that a person has to wait ten days before he can get a job, even if there is a tremendous shortage of skilled clerical labour, because there are no private employment agencies to effect this extremely quick changeover.
It seems extraordinary, when we have a free State employment service, to which I pay tribute, that alongside it a charging service can exist and flourish although it has to pay its way in competition with that free service. That the hon. Gentleman should suggest that this efficient service, which is paying its way and charging fees, should be abolished because it is standing in the way of the State service, seems to be turning logic on its head.
I have the dubious authority, but at least the authority, of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to back up what I say:
Employment agencies are a symptom of two causes—the absence of a fully developed State employment service operating an integrated manpower policy and the failure of many employers to use effectively the staff at their command.
If there is this need, the hon. Gentleman is indeed rash to suggest abolishing it.
The hon. Gentleman made a lot of unsubstantiated allegations. I should like

to answer some of them, because I do not think he should make allegations in a tip and run Ten-Minutes Rule speech and be allowed to get away with them.
The hon. Gentleman talked about deceptive advertisements. He should know that in London the local authorities control the standard of advertisements and actively check that the advertisements outside correspond to jobs inside which are real and available. There is active local authority policing. I should like his Bill to extend local authority licensing to the rest of the country where it does not exist. That would be worth while. However, that is a different matter from abolishing the lot. In addition, the Trade Descriptions Act applies. If any member of the public is aggrieved or thinks an advertisement is false, he has his remedy by going to the local weights and measures inspector, who will prosecute at no cost to the individual if the advertisement proves to be false.
The hon. Gentleman said that employers were given the wrong staff and that the interviewers were not competent. The National Board for Prices and Incomes considered this point, too, and, quite truthfully in my opinion, said that employers do not specify accurately enough their staff requirements and therefore it is impossible for the interviewers to produce the right applicants for the vacancy or vacancies.
The hon. Gentleman implied a slur about young girls being taken to Spain and given jobs which turned out to be immoral. [Hon. Members: "No."] The hon. Gentleman should know that on investigation that was proved not to be true. He should be careful to avoid that kind of slur against employment agencies.
The hon. Gentleman's worst point was that there were too many of these private employment agencies. What can they all be doing? They must be doing business or they would not be there. There could not be 12 agencies in Victoria Street not earning profits or they would not be there. If the hon. Gentleman goes along Victoria Street he will find probably 12 grocers and 12 tobacconists. There is nothing wrong in that. It means they are doing good business and fulfilling a need.
Private employment agencies find the staff which employers need for very good


reasons: when staff are sick or on holiday and when there is a shortage of staff to do extra work. The agencies match the staff to the requirements of the market. The private employment agencies form a most effective instrument.
Until the Labour Party realises that we do not build for the future by trying to destroy what is good about the present, it will never endear itself to those who want to see this country get on, bustle forward, and improve its position.
I do not intend to divide the House on this occasion. It is ridiculous to think that the Bill could make any progress. We are already in the middle of July and the Session is about to come to an end. It would have been a waste of my hon. Friends' time to have asked them to come in large numbers this afternoon to vote down leave to bring in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's Bill will get nowhere. The only reason why I am not dividing the House on this occasion is that his Bill has no hope of reaching the Statute Book. That is something about which the House should be extremely pleased.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Strang, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. Neville Sandelson.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Bill to abolish private employment agencies presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

4.23 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Third Reading of the Finance Bill is by tradition, which is made more compelling by the rulings of the Chair, a narrow debate. However, it is in order to say a few words about the passage of the Bill so far. I am sure that the whole House will be with me when I express my gratitude to my Treasury colleagues, the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Minister of State. They have borne the brunt of the detailed debates and carried out their tasks with great skill and patience. No two Parliamentary Private Secretaries ever made a greater contribution to the debates on the Finance Bill than our two, our hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and the High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant).
I also pay tribute to the Opposition spokesmen. It is an immensely difficult task for those in Opposition to equip themselves with the expertise which is necessary to deal with the complex matters contained in a Bill such as this. In addition to that inherent problem of opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was faced with an added difficulty because he was appointed the principal Opposition spokesman without any warning and at the most crucial time of the year for the consideration of economic and taxation matters.
Finally, I express my gratitude to back benchers on both sides who have contributed to the debates, but in particular to my hon. Friends, who have played a most constructive rôle in the programme of reform. Those who have for so long pressed for taxation reform have cause to be grateful to my hon. Friends for now making it possible.
No one could claim that the important taxation reforms embodied in the Bill


have not been well discussed and debated. Both the proposals for value added tax and the reform of corporation tax were published in Green Paper form last year and have been subjected to extensive consultations and discussions. I am informed that the Bill has more Clauses and Schedules than any previous Finance Bill. To consider the policy and the detail, we have had four days of Budget debate, one day on the Second Reading, six days in Committee of the whole House, 20 sittings of the Standing Committee and three day son Report. So far our deliberations have occupied 3,638 columns of Hansard. I am told that if we keep the debate going for two more hours, as we shall, hon. Members will have spoken exactly double the number of words that there are in the Authorised Version of the Bible. I do not doubt that if our tax laws had to be written on tablets of stone we should perforce be far more concise.
When I was appointed Chancellor I knew that one of my tasks was to reform and modernise the tax system which had grown up in haphazard fashion over the past 50 or 100 years. Now, two years later, the bulk of the legislation has been virtually completed. The legislation for the unification of income tax and surtax was passed in last year's Finance Act. This year we have legislation for the reform of indirect taxation and company taxation, and important changes in estate duty. We have now completed all the main legislation of our radical tax reform programme. We have reached the culmination of a two-year process of preparation, consultation and legislation.
Some of the tax changes are already in operation, but the main structural changes, the unification of income tax and surtax, the replacement of purchase tax and selective employment tax by VAT and the reform of corporation tax, all come into operation next April. By completing that legislation in advance and enacting provisional rates for next year, we have met the plea, which has been so often made in the past, for advance notice of major changes in taxation.
When I became Chancellor, my task was not only to reform the taxation system but also to reduce the burden of taxation. That policy has been

achieved. We have not waited for the new system before doing so. We have made reductions in taxation right away and right across the board. We have in the Bill and in last year's Finance Act reduced and reformed the taxes on earnings and spending. We have reduced and reformed the taxes on companies. We have taken action to promote investment and savings. The reductions have all been planned so as to pave the way for the long-term structural reforms. Corporation tax has been reduced twice, and from April, 1973, the tax system will be neutral as between retained and distributed profits. That will greatly diminish the present double taxation on distributions and help the capital market to play its proper part in the allocation of capital resources.
We have paid special attention to the problems of small companies. They will benefit from the lower rate of corporation tax. Perhaps more important, we have laid the spectre of shortfall and generally simplified close company legislation. We have also given direct encouragement to the investment and modernisation of industry by introducing the most generous ever system for depreciation for the whole country. Over and above free depreciation, we have introduced grants for the regions and given the biggest and clearest financial advantage for regional development that we have ever had. I have given the assurance that it is our intention that this combination of national and regional investment incentives will be left at least until 1978.
All this is a major step forward in company taxation. However, at the same time we are giving industry two things which it has rightly demanded, stability in depreciation allowances and advance notice of corporation tax changes, so that it can plan with confidence.
So much for companies and the means of production. However, when companies produce their goods it is right that the public should have as far as possible a free and undistorted choice. Although I recognise that it is controversial, our major reform has been the replacement of discriminatory purchase tax and SET by the new VAT. A great deal of time has been spent on VAT in Committee, which is right when a completely new tax is introduced. However, because of the increased tax based, VAT will give con-


sumers a greater freedom of choice and reduce uncertainty for producers and traders and help exporters.
We have taken particular care to ensure that this change will not make the tax system more regressive. The rate of VAT is the lowest in Europe. Its coverage has been designed to ensure that it does not bear disproportionately on the poor.
Already, as part of the process of tax reform and tax reduction, indirect taxes have been reduced by more than £700 million. That is the measure of the contribution that we have already made to fighting the rise in the cost of living. The reductions in the upper rates of purchase tax in the Bill were in particular planned in a form which would ease the process of introducing VAT. Since the intention is to raise by VAT a broadly similar revenue to that which is raised at the present by purchase tax and SET, the effect on the overall level of prices will be minimal, particularly as the burden of SET is being removed from essentials such as food and housing. The House may be interested to know that if purchase tax and SET had continued at the rates in force when I became Chancellor VAT would have had to be imposed at a rate not of 10 per cent, but of 15 per cent.
But we are concerned not only with spending. A high level of personal savings is also essential if, in the long-term, we are to sustain a faster rate of growth, and therefore our tax reforms have also been designed to promote saving and to remove some of the previous discouragements. We have legislated this year to ensure that as from next April there will be no additional tax on investment income up to £2,000 a year. The first £2,000 of income from savings will be treated in the same way as income from earnings.
In addition, we have legislated for a new scale of estate duty, for a major easing of the estate duty burden on widows, and for a raising of the starting point which, taking the two years together, exempts half the estates which would otherwise have been liable, and all these exempted estates are at the bottom of the scale.
The changes which we made last year in capital gains tax, the abolition of the

charge on death and the introduction of the small disposals exemption took one-quarter of all assessments out of that tax altogether. We have abolished the stamp duty on mortgages altogether, and we have abolished stamp duty on conveyances for the great majority of house purchasers.
Finally, I come to taxation on earnings, which is perhaps most important of all if we are to achieve over the years ahead a really dynamic economy. The new unified income tax system for which the legislation is now complete will be much simpler for the people of this country to understand and will have a far less discouraging effect on enterprise and initiative.
As from next April there will be only a single tax on earnings, and surtax with all its complications will be a thing of the past. With none of the complications of the earned income relief, the tax allowances will represent quite simply the amount of tax-free income, and the result of the massive increases in allowances made by this Government is that a married man with two young children does not reach the starting point of tax until his earnings exceed £1,115 a year. This is almost one-third more than when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. So the encroachment of income tax on the lower income groups which took place so steadily under the previous Administration is reversed. Above the allowances—that is to say, above the starting point of tax in the new system—every taxpayer will know that 30 per cent, of his earnings—no more, no less—will be deducted for tax, and that will remain so right through until he becomes liable to the higher rates of tax which start at around £5,500.
This year the increase in personal allowances is by far the biggest item. The House will recall that it cost £1,200 million. Of this, £1,000 million goes to people whose earnings are under one-and-a-half times the national average. The reduction in SET and purchase tax to which I have referred helps everyone. The proposed coverage of VAT has been widely welcomed. Of the estate duty changes, two-thirds of the benefit goes to widows, charities and raising the threshold.
The Bill represents the completion of this particular programme of taxation


reform, and this programme has in certain important respects been so arranged as to pave the way for the consideration which I hope will before long be given to the proposal for a tax-credit system involving a fundamentally new approach to the bringing together of the personal tax and social security systems. But that is for the future. For the present, I commend the Bill to the House.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: This is, indeed, as the Chancellor said, the longest Finance Bill in history which we are debating on Third Reading this afternoon, and I confess that I feel this deeply, as no doubt do Members on the Front Bench opposite. I am grateful to the Chancellor for what he said about myself and about the teams on both Front Benches which dealt with the Bill in Committee.
I hope that no one will consider it invidious if I give special praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett), who did so much to lighten my own burdens in these circumstances, and to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who carried the heavy burden of justifying the unjustifiable in the long debates on VAT.
The Chancellor rightly concentrated on the tax changes which are the substance of the Bill, and I shall do so as well, but I shall spend more time than the right hon. Gentleman did on discussing some of the effects of these tax changes on the needs of the nation and on the new objectives which the Chancellor has set himself in dealing with the problem of inflation.
It almost baffles comprehension that the Chancellor should again have made a speech on the Finance Bill without referring for a moment to the major problems facing the country, those of employment and, even more important, inflation. I shall have a good deal to say about the impact of some of the changes in the Bill on what is confessed by everybody in the country to be our major national economic problems, a problem which, departmentally, the Chancellor has the main responsibility for solving.
For the ordinary people of Britain the main feature of the Bill is the relief of

£1 a week to those who pay sufficient tax to qualify, but that relief has already been swallowed up for many in rising prices and loss of benefits, and it will disappear for all who should be benefiting from it by the end of this year, or the early months of next year, partly through the progress of inflation—unless drastic action is taken to stop it—and partly as a result of new burdens on the cost of living being imposed by deliberate Government policy later in the year through the Rent Act, the food policy and VAT, which we shall be discussing this afternoon.
Apart from this putative cut of £1 a week for ordinary people, nearly all the other proposals in the Bill, apart from those already reversed—like the removal of restraints on investment in the sterling area, or those under challenge by our prospective partners in the Common Market like the proposals for free depreciation—have been shown to be inadequate, irrelevant or highly damaging. I hope that the Chief Secretary will confirm that the Brussels Commission has already rejected the German claim that this free depreciation is contrary to the statutes of the Market, not only under Article 92, but also in general, because the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the complaints leveled by the German Government relates to the fact that this free depreciation affects investment all over the country, and not only in the regions, and, therefore, the disclaimer which the Minister for Industrial Development referred to in dealing with this yesterday is not wholely relevant and does not cover the whole problem as the Germans have put it.

Mr. Barber: There is no conflict between the depreciation provisions in the Bill and our joining the EEC.

Mr. Healey: I understand that that is the Chancellor's view, but, as the matter has been raised by one prospective partner, I ask the Chancellor to confirm that that is the view of the Brussels Commission, because it is for the commission to decide whether or not it is, and if it decides that it is, nothing that the British Government may say or believe is relevant.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to


yesterday's Hansard, he will see that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development said:
I further understand that the Commission has already told the German Government that the depreciation provisions in the Finance Bill are not regarded by it as regional measures."—[Official Report, 18th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 396.]

Mr. Healey: Yes, I know. I made that point a moment ago. I do not think that the hon. Member was listening carefully. While certainly the free depreciation is not contrary to the regional provisions of the treaty, I wanted an assurance that the Brussels Commission does not regard it as contrary to any of the provisions of the treaty. As I understand it, the Germans have been complaining that because the free depreciation applies to all capital investment all over the country, therefore it is distorting of competition. If I am wrong about that, I shall be only too happy to hear about it. But the disclaimer quoted by the Minister yesterday does not cover this point. It refers only to the question whether it is contrary to the regional policy of the Brussels powers.
Apart from the proposals which have already been reversed or challenged, nearly all the other proposals have been proved, since they were introduced in the Budget four months ago, to be inadequate, irrelevant or positively damaging to our economic interests.
The biggest single change, on which the Chancellor rightly spent some time a moment ago, is the replacement of purchase tax and SET by VAT, which has been presented again and again—we could almost chant the refrain every time the first word comes from the Financial Secretary—as a comprehensive tax to cover the broad range of consumer expenditure.
On Second Reading, when the Chancellor first introduced VAT in detail, he tried to persuade us that it was an elegant device, a taxman's dream, to relieve us painlessly of our money without the distortions or anomalies of the taxes it replaces. But the careful examination to which we have submitted the tax over the last few months confirms the view we expressed on Second Reading, that value added tax, as the Government have presented it, is a fatuous monstrosity, a fiesta for form-fillers and fiddlers, leaking

at every joint with idiotic and damaging anomalies, appallingly expensive to administer, incapable of enforcement without violating the basic traditions of British justice, regressive in its social impact and inflationary in its economic effect.
I want to justify this claim point by point. First, let us consider the anomalies. I do not think that even the Financial Secretary will now claim that VAT is not absolutely crammed with the most absurd anomalies. These anomalies arise from the fact that in this area, as in so many areas, the Government have felt themselves compelled to temper their dogmatic attachment to 19th century market economics with a lively concern for the effect of their actions on political expediency in the latter half of the 20th century. Thus the tax is not comprehensive, as presented at present. About 45 per cent.—nearly half—of consumer expenditure is not affected by the tax—quite rightly so, in the opinion of this side of the House. Since the 45 per cent, zero rating was first announced by the Government, we have had an odd collection of further concessions by the Government. These have come partly under pressure from quite legitimate vested interests outside the House, partly as a result of threatened rebellions by Conservative back benchers—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) in the Chamber, who spoke so eloquently about zero-rating children's shoes—and partly as a result of arguments advanced from the Opposition side of the House. Almost every concession made by the Government was one which was refused in Committee but, when finally put into an Opposition Amendment, the concession was made when we came to the Floor of the House last week.
For many of us, the quintessence of the anomalousness of this tax will be the common or garden fried potato. If we fry it at home it attracts no VAT. If someone fries it for us in a restaurant, it attracts a 10 per cent. VAT. If someone fries it for us in a fish and chip shop, it attracts no VAT if we eat it outside the shop but a 10 per cent. VAT if we eat it in the shop. To further this quintessence of idiocy, if this fried potato is cold and served in a sealed packet, it attracts a 10 per cent. VAT whether we


eat it at home or in the shop where we buy it. We still have to wait for some Ministers to enlighten us on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton on Second Reading, as to how many chips we have to eat between the counter and the door in order to be relieved of how much VAT in a fish and chip shop.
I want to quote a few other anomalies that have come to light. Butter is not taxed but the paper in which it is wrapped is taxed. A one-man tax does not charge VAT, but a firm running four taxis does charge. Taxi drivers are now deeply concerned whether they should display, together with their normal flag, a little poster saying "VAT Free" or "VAT Charged". Furniture fitted in a kitchen—so far as we can discover—is to be free from tax. Furniture in bedrooms is to attract a tax of 10 per cent.
One of the most interesting anomalies in the Bill is that if one chooses to spend 27 days in a hotel room one will pay a 10 per cent. VAT. If one spends 28 days in the hotel room one will be completely free from tax. If one is wise one will be able to have three days at a hotel by paying VAT for the first 25 days and then riding free for the last three until one qualifies for exemption.
Another anomaly which is certain to attract enormous evasion is that a man with a turnover of £5,000 does not charge the tax but cannot recover it from his inputs. If he is earning 10s. more in a year, then he has to charge the tax but he can recover it from his inputs. One of the things which disturbed us most in Committee is that abortionists, even in private practice, do not charge value added tax but an osteopath treating an old-age pensioner must charge value added tax. Rented television is free from double taxation; rented radio is not. Postal services are free from VAT; private telephones are not.
Indeed, it is easy to see why The Times has described value added tax as "the very anomalous tax". It is difficult to think of a tax in our history which has quite so many anomalies or as damaging anomalies as this one.
I come now to the socially regressive character of the tax. By zero-rating items of consumer expenditure which are

essential, such as food and fuel, up to now the Government have very much reduced the regressive character of the tax as it exists on the Continent in countries with which we are expected to harmonise our rates and coverage when we join the Common Market. But it is very interesting to see precisely how, even within the restraints that the Government have so far accepted, the tax has turned out to be far more regressive than the Chancellor has ever admitted.
In 1970 the two higher rates of purchase tax, which were on less essential goods and luxuries such as furs and perfumes, raised £587 million more than the same volume of those same goods would raise under VAT.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much of that comes from furs and how much from perfumes?

Mr. Healey: I cannot. Perhaps the Chief Secretary will enlighten us on that later. He will not deny the figure I gave, which I gave in our earlier debate; namely, that the two higher rates of purchase tax charged in 1970 accounted for 60 per cent, of the whole yield, which was £587 million more than the same volume of these inessential goods would raise under the value added tax. Therefore, it is clear that that £587 million must now be found by taxing more essential goods and services.
In our discussions in Standing Committee we found out what some of these more essential goods and services are to be—a whole range of safety equipment in industry, a whole range of goods for disabled people, a whole range of essential household goods; all of these will now carry a 10 per cent, value added tax. Every time that we sought to change the Government's intention, the Government rejected our Amendments.
At the moment the Government plan to raise £52 million by taxing children's clothes and shoes, which will impose a burden of £10 per year on the average young family. It is true that, in response to pressure from both sides of the House, the Government have set up a medical group to consider whether it is desirable to produce a utility shoe for


children. If they do, that might reduce the £10 a family to £8 a family, but the reduction will be no more than that. Children's clothes and shoes have never before been taxed in British history until they will be taxed under VAT next April if the Government have their way.
Canteen meals will go up 10 per cent. Tea from machines in canteens will go up 25 per cent. The price of a wash in a launderette, unless launderettes find a way of adopting season tickets—a concept to which an hon. Gentleman opposite treated us in the excursion into the lives of ordinary men and women with which he enlivened our debate in the early hours of the morning—may well rise by 50 per cent. or 100 per cent., because coin-operated machines are not fitted to take coins which will add on simply 10 per cent. to the existing charges, and in many cases no such coin exists even if the machines did take it.
The Government propose to raise an extra £40 million from 8 million private users of telephones whom the Chief Secretary in Standing Committee admitted to be mainly poor people.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We have inserted a correction in the Official Report. It was of course mainly not poor people.

Mr. Healey: I am glad to hear that. I am sure that the Chief Secretary will agree that an enormous number of old people—many of whom are poor, incidentally—rely on the telephone as almost their only contact with their relatives and with the outside world. No correction in the Official Report will change that fact.
A whole range of charitable, educational and sporting activities are to be subjected to the value added tax. In his weekend speeches the Prime Minister makes a great deal of his desire to make the cultural heritage of our country, and, indeed, of world civilisation, as widely as possible available throughout the nation. Yet he is not satisfied merely with clapping an admission charge on entry to art galleries and museums. He is clapping the value added tax on top of that entry charge. He is clapping a 10 per cent. charge on admission charges to concerts. He is clapping a 10 per cent. charge on admission to the live theatre. He is clapping a 10 per cent. charge on admission to football and rugger matches

—a "killer tax", as it has been described by the Football Association.
The Chancellor knows as well as all the rest of us know that the imposition of the value added tax as a back door re-introduction of entertainment tax on admission charges to football matches, rugger matches and the live theatre will mean the speedy disappearance of many of the smaller clubs and many of the smaller theatres which are operating very successfully, though on the margin.
The average church will have to find £200 a year extra for its repair and maintenance. Yet last week the Chancellor refused to give up the £1½ million involved only two days after he had given the bookies £2½ million in his relief of value added tax on on-course betting.
A crippling burden of £100,000 a year will fall on the Youth Hostels Association, one of the most useful organisations in promoting healthy recreation for young persons. Many charities like Oxfam and Help the Aged will suffer similarly. The Salvation Army will have to add 10 per cent. to the price of beds for the down and out as a result of the imposition of value added tax on charities.
What so many of us found it almost impossible to understand during our debates was that there was no rhyme or reason in this cruel discrimination against good causes. At one moment we were told that it was impossible and wrong to distort the application of this tax for social or medical reasons. The next moment we were told that the Government would consider doing so for children's shoes. At one moment we were told that it was absolutely impossible to relieve the churches of VAT on their repair and maintenance without extending the relief to any public house which wanted to repair and maintain its premises. Yet a day earlier the Government themselves had relieved rental television of double taxation without similarly relieving other hired goods.
In addition to these anomalies and the social regressiveness and sheer brutality of some aspects of the tax, the Government have not sought to disguise the fact that the administrative costs of the tax will be appalling. They have told us that they are prepared to spend £16 million on an extra 8,000 civil servants in the Customs and Excise to administer


the tax. It required only 2,000 to administer the purchase tax.
In addition, 2 million members of the public will be concerned with the administration of the tax. Half a million will have to pay the tax but will not have to keep records; those are the exempted members of the public. Another ½ million will have to keep records but not pay the tax; those are the ones whose business is zero-rated. Altogether the 1½ million who have to keep invoices will have to record thousands of millions of separate transactions every year and keep the records of these transactions available for long periods for scrutiny by the Customs and Excise.
Yet the Government have so little confidence in the ability of 10,000 members of the Customs and Excise to monitor these invoices that they have given them unprecedented powers of search and entry, powers which have, if any precedent, precedent only in powers given in the 18th century and still surviving for the detection of smugglers. These powers are now to be applied to 1½ million of our fellow citizens.
Again, the Government have so little confidence in the ability of the Customs and Excise, even armed with these powers of search and entry, to provide evidence for prosecution that they have sought and got from hon. Members opposite the right of the courts to convict a man without knowing when or where the crime was committed or the precise amount of money involved. I am not at all surprised that when we debated this matter on the Floor of the House last week and one or two Members opposite looked at the Bill for the first time their shock and horror of reading the provisions of Clause 38 were as great as our own.
The reasons the Government have sought these draconian powers of enforcement is that they know that a tax falling on so many people who have never dealt with this type of tax before will be open to evasion on a colossal scale. When we quoted to the Government Front Bench the French estimate of a loss of £1,000 million a year through the evasion of value added tax we were told "We are not like Frenchmen here. We do not evade tax." But Britons have never been subjected to the temptation of evasion on

this scale because great care was taken previously in this country to levy consumption tax at the wholesale end from 68,000 people instead of levying it at the consumption end from 2 million or 1½ million people.
Even after this immensely detailed scrutiny there are many vital issues on which no one, including the Government Front Bench, yet knows what the law will be. Mr. Reynolds, tax adviser to Esso Petroleum, at a conference held by the Financial Times was reported in The Times as saying:
Many questions about VAT still remained unanswered. Those who had sorted out some of their worries were a highly privileged minority.
He went on to say that if an industry like the oil industry, which was used to dealing with excise duties over nearly 50 years, had problems
one could imagine that classification might loom as a significant problem for businesses not wholly experienced in it.
The Government have been asked again and again to publish and put before the House, before asking it to approve the Bill the Statutory Instruments on which it will rely for operating the Bill when it is enacted. The Government have not done so because they are incapable of doing so. In many vital areas they do not have the slightest idea of how they will handle the problem. We had an admission of that in the case of building fixtures during the Committee stage. It is not surprising that one of my close friends who works for one of the leading British charities should have designed a new banner saying:
Vat 69, the drink that is fine
VAT '72, the witch's brew.
Why on earth have the Government embroiled us all in this Heath Robinson contraption just to raise the same revenue as was being raised through purchase tax and SET without any of these difficulties? Purchase tax is so much simpler and fairer. To take only one example of great concern to the commercial world at present, purchase tax is not charged on bad debts. VAT will be charged on bad debts, and, not surprisingly, the business world is up in arms about it. There is only one conceivable explanation, unless the Government have taken leave of their senses, why they should seek to raise the same amount of money from VAT as they did from two simple and extremely


efficient taxes. It is that their intention is to raise the rate and coverage of the tax and to harmonise with the Common Market as soon as they have the opportunity.
The Chancellor as much as admitted in his opening remarks this afternoon that the gap between our VAT proposals as they exist today and the average VAT rate and coverage on the Continent is very wide indeed. Broadly speaking, the Continental countries raise 15 per cent. of their revenue through VAT, which is 50 per cent. more than Her Majesty's Government will raise if they confine themselves to the rate and coverage in the Bill. But the Government have given themselves the right to do the same as is done by our partners in the Common Market with whom we have accepted an obligation in principle to harmonise our VAT, and to do so by order at the fag end of a busy day.
We spent a great deal of time trying to probe the Government's intentions on the application of VAT to food. On Second Reading and in Committee the Chancellor rejected every opportunity to deny that he would extend the tax to cover food. The furthest he has ever gone was last Wednesday when he was prepared to say:
What I can and will do is willingly give an undertaking that there is no question of the powers contained in cl ause 12(4)"—
that is extension by statutory order—
being used by this Government to impose a positive rate of tax generally on food. Putting it another way this power will not be used to delete group 1 of Schedule 4".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1972; Vol. 840, c. 1471.]
When my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) asked the Chancellor if he would also say that he would not seek to include food in the coverage of VAT by a separate Bill or by a different procedure he refused to answer. I hope very much that we shall get a clear answer to the question from the Chief Secretary when he winds up this evening.
I turn to the missing theme in the Chancellor's speeches on the Finance Bill—inflation. We all recognise that this is overwhelmingly our great national problem, and the VAT, even in its present form, will make the problem substantially worse. According to the

National Institute of Economic and Social Research—and when I quoted its estimate the Government did not seek to deny it—VAT in its present form will add at least 1 per cent. next year to the cost of living overall. As I have sought to demonstrate, the increase will fall very much more heavily on the poor than on the rich. The rich will find that their cost of living will go down with the abolition of the high rates of purchase tax and their replacement by the 10 per cent. rate of VAT. That is without taking into account the "ratchet" effect with which we became so familiar after decimalisation last year. I would be prepared to wager that the increase in the cost of living attributable to VAT by the end of next year will be well over 1 per cent., although it is impossible to put a more precise figure upon it.
All this will happen in a year when we shall probably find a 2 per cent. increase in the cost of living as a result of the expected devaluation of the £ of 8 per cent.—that is if we peg at 2.40 dollars—and between a 1 and 2 per cent. increase in the cost of living due to the first year's impact of the common agricultural policy. With VAT added to these other symbols of Government policy and failure we can look forward next year, whatever happens on the inflation front in other respects, to an additional increase in the cost of living of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. That is without taking into account all the other things the Government are doing, for example in the rents Bill, and what they are not doing to deal with the problem of inflation in general.
As I said earlier, what shocked me again when I listened to the Chancellor this afternoon was that in referring to the Finance Bill and its social and economic objectives he never once mentioned our central national problem of inflation. Similarly, in listing all the objectives of the Finance Bill on Second Reading the words "inflation" and "price rises" never passed his lips. I referred to his attitude in the debate on the floating of the £ as one of "stupefying complacency". It is no less stupefying today because he was compelled to float the £ by his failure to control inflation and the act of floating in itself will make inflation worse.
I pass to the question of the impact of the tax reforms or changes in the Bill on the central problem facing us all, the problem which it is the responsibility of the Chancellor personally to do something about. After deliberately provoking confrontations with the working people for two years—and no one has been more provocative than the Chancellor in his weekend speeches during some of our recent industrial disputes—the Government very wisely are trying at last to start a dialogue with the trade unions, as the representatives of our working population, on the problem of inflation. One of their major objectives, as the Chancellor admitted in his Press statement after the meeting yesterday, is to try to get the co-operation of the trade unions in some sort of incomes policy, an incomes policy of a voluntary nature, because, as he rightly admitted yesterday, a compulsory policy cannot last for long. That is the lesson of the past. Constructive co-operation between working people, their employers and the Government is vital if we are to get inflation under control. It would be fatal to peg the £ until we get inflation under control. But the first condition of obtaining this type of co-operation—I suspect that the Chancellor was told this in no uncertain terms by the trade union representatives at the meeting he attended yesterday—is the Government's dropping policies deliberately designed to drive up the cost of living.
It is perhaps not in order to do more than mention the Housing Finance Bill and the Government's food policy, in addition to the value added tax, which is very relevant to our debate today. But there is a second condition for fruitful co-operation between the Government, employers and working people. The Government are right to identify two major objectives of incomes policy. The first is that there should be some compression of differentials; that is, the difference in reward for differences in skill, difficulty or danger of work. The second is that increases in incomes should be related to, and dependent on, increases in production. The Government are absolutely right to set those two objectives or criteria in their discussions with the TUC and the employers for any sort of voluntary incomes policy. But the whole of the Chancellor's tax policy

since he took office nearly two years ago has been calculated to twist the trend in the opposite direction. He has deliberately sought—he boasted of it again this afternoon—to widen differentials between rich and poor. He has deliberately sought to help those who do not work for their living, who depend on unearned income. Among those who do work, he has tolerated absolutely inexcusable increases of income for those who speculate and profiteer. For example, there is the increase of £100 million—50 per cent.—in the income of stockbrokers last year, at a time when production was falling and unemployment rising. The Government must try to understand that these issues, which they refuse to refer to when they enter into negotiations for discussions with the trade unions, are regarded by ordinary people as absolutely critical, acid tests of the Government's good faith in the matter.
An incomes policy cannot be based on one law for the rich and another for the poor. The compression of differentials cannot be applied only to people who happen to be members of trade unions working for incomes between about £15 a week and £50 a week, forcing them to compress their differentials while launching the wealthy to dizzy heights of income by tax reliefs, profiteering and speculative gains.
The House will be aware, though I regret to say that the public is not, because so far as I could discover our debate late last Thursday night received no mention in the Press or on the radio, that the Opposition voted last Thursday against an increase in top salaries in the case of the judges, the only group whom it is permitted to discuss under the law as it stands. On the very day the Government decided to float the £, and thus give another twist to the inflationary spiral, they gave rises of up to 20 per cent, to the top men in public service, men who are earning between four and 14 times the national average already. What is not realised so fully is that those men had already been given by the Chancellor an increase of £1,080 in take-home pay—I am taking a £15,000-a-year man as typical—by cuts in tax and surtax, and that that increase is being raised in the Bill to £1,504 by next April, equal to the whole earnings of the average man and woman in this country.
Outside the public sector we see much higher increases in pay for top people and much higher increases in tax relief. The Chancellor boasted when we discussed the Budget—I noted that he did not quote the figure today, and I understand why—that he was giving away this year £300 million, which will go almost exclusively to people earning over £5,000 a year, or living on unearned income. A director or manager of a firm who has a total income of £22,100 a year—there are many such—of which £2,100 is investment income is £2,000 a year better off as a result of the Budget. A married couple with a £15,000-a-year income which is all unearned will receive a present from the Budget of £1,430, almost the average earnings of the average man or woman. No production increase, no productivity increase, is tied to that increase. At the other end of the scale, a young family with two children under 11 on the average earnings receive a net increase in income through the tax changes we are discussing of only 0·02 per cent., a few shillings in the whole year. Yet the Chancellor lectures the trade unions on compressing differentials, and the Foreign Secretary, living on estates won entirely by the greed and rapacity of his ancestors, has the gall to lecture the agricultural workers on greed when they are asking for an increase above £16 a week for a 42-hour working week.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: Did the right hon. Gentleman turn down the recommendations of Lord Boyle on his own income? Did he take into account how many times above the national average his earnings were then? Does he not feel a bit embarrassed, talking like this about the judges, when he accepted the increase for himself without being tempted to vote against it?

Mr. Healey: The increase of salaries for Members of Parliament, which was voted unanimously, so far as I recall, was the first increase for seven years. It did not follow 12 months after the last increase, as in the case of judges' pay. The salary of Members of Parliament before the increase was only twice the national average, and not 11 times, as in the case with the judges' salaries. The increase was less than was required to cover the increase in the cost of living since the previous rise seven years ago. Most important, the increase offered to

Members of Parliament followed the most comprehensive essay in job evaluation ever applied to any salary in this country. The increase offered to the top salary earners in public service the other day was offered, as Lord Boyle frankly admitted in his report, without having the slightest idea whether it was justified by the nature of their job. That is my reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Earlier in his remarks the right hon. Gentleman referred to the increases in judges' pay as being of the order of 20 per cent. Will he now say what the annual increase in the rate of judges' pay was since the last increase? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to attempt to mislead the House by referring to the increase what the judges had the year before since he knows very well that that was part of the delayed increase from the original settlement made some years ago. Will he answer the simple question: what was the annual increase in judges' salaries.

Mr. Healey: I confess that I cannot answer that question. Perhaps the Minister can later. What I will say is that when a similar recommendation was made to the last Government in 1969, when inflation was far less of a problem than it is today, the Government of the day decided, in my view quite rightly, to phase the increase over three years. There was no reason why this Government could not have done that a fortnight ago. But they chose not to do so, although a Conservative Government in 1962 did decide to phase a pay increase offered to Servicemen over two years. Secondly, it was perfectly open to the Government to change the recommendations, as a Labour Government changed the recommendations regarding ministerial salaries and cut the increase by half, and as they did, too, with doctors. The Government are so insensitive, and that is my main concern—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise the House in these matters. It was my understanding that on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill it was in order only to discuss those matters in the Bill as it had been returned to us from the Committee. I find it a little hard to follow the precise connection between the present line of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that he was perhaps stretching the "passing reference" rule a little too far.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my anxiety to answer the questions put by the hon. Members opposite, which you allowed to be put to me, led me some distance from the Bill. I would remind the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) that the central point I was making is that the tax and surtax changes in the Finance Bill increase the take-home pay of top salary earners by 20 per cent., tax free, by next April. It is a tax-free increase of £1,504 a year. If the hon. Member is embarrassed by the recital of these facts I can well understand it but they are deeply relevant to the problems facing the Government and the nation.
So far I have discussed only the income and surtax relief offered to the wealthy in this Budget. Let us look at some of the other concessions—£30 million-worth of relief on capital gains for unit trusts, £7 million worth of relief on loan interest—carefully calculated to eliminate the interest on loans taken out by ordinary people for hire purchase purposes because the first £35 of loan interest is not included—£115 million-worth of free depreciation, which I sincerely hope helps to achieve the Chancellor's objectives and £45 million in relief for small companies. Yet the same Chancellor who has offered these staggering additional give-a ways to the wealthy refused, only last week, to offer £2 million in tax relief to the blind. He imposed surtax on the very poor by an enormous extension in the spread of means-tested benefit.
The Government's philosophy is shown at its nadir, if that is the right word, by the proposals for stock options contained in the Bill. These stock options are not tied to profits, they are related in no way whatever to production or productivity. They can only increase differentials rather than compress them because they are open to 87 per cent. of the directors of companies and only to ¼ per cent. of the employees of companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) pointed out in Committee, the scheme which the Hoover Company has already put to the Chancellor makes 11,300 employees work

to increase the value of shares given to 170 of the very wealthy executives in Hoover, who get a preferential tax rate on capital gains brought about as a result of the efforts of the workers. Last year alone if the stock option proposals had been operable, ten executives of major companies in Britain could have had £2 million of share options between them. Their potential profits from capital gains as the years pass will be greater still.
I put this point to the Chancellor, and if he will not take it from me perhaps he will take it from Mr. Campbell Adamson and Mr. Victor Feather who put the same point to him, I gather. In 1972 the people of this country are better educated, more alert and more aware than ever before in history. Millions of the people in this country feel totally alienated from the whole system of government as it has operated over the last two years. If the Prime Minister asks those millions to co-operate in the restraint of income increases they will immediately come back with the facts which I have mentioned. I hope hon. Members read the recent moving and eloquent articles in the Financial Times and The Times by their social correspondents, referring to this sense of alienation from the whole process of Government which now assails such a large proportion of our population.
There is no possibility, and the Chancellor must know this, of controlling inflation without the co-operation of these millions and there is no chance of getting this co-operation without a radical reversal of the social and economic policies enshrined in the Bill. That is why we shall vote against the Third Reading tonight and that is why we hope, without great confidence, that at least some hon. Members opposite who are sincerely concerned with this problem will recognise the importance of restoring unity in our divided nation and will start by joining us in the Lobby tonight.

5.27 p.m.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I am grateful to be called so early and to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I can guarantee that my speech, although it may have some similarity to his as regards VAT, will be very different as regards time. I know that there are a


great many hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to speak.
It is right that someone on this side should get up and say clearly that there are many Conservatives in the country and in the House who do not care for VAT. This number will increase when its true import is realised throughout the country. I know from my visits to my constituency that each time I return there is yet another group which is dissatisfied with our proposals on VAT, and it is becoming more and more difficult to explain just why we should have it.
Such people turn to the party manifesto and quite rightly point out that, although we gave a hint that we might be introducing VAT, we never gave the absolute assurance that we would. We gave some assurances. We said that we would simplify the tax system, and that was a straightforward statement. No one today really believes that the introduction of VAT will simplify the tax system. We feel that it will increase the number of civil servants needed to collect it. That in itself is a pretty unpopular message to have to give to one's constituents.
Secondly, we learned that we were to reduce taxation. We are reducing taxation, and we are grateful that taxation has been reduced, but we wonder just for whom the taxation will be reduced. Further down the same page of the manifesto we see it stated that the VAT will be fairer because the tax will be less discriminatory because it will be more broadly based, and it will be
fairer in its impact on different types of industry and service.
There is no real mention in our manifesto about how it will be fairer to the ordinary persons who voted us into power, and, in fact, it is not going to be fairer to ordinary persons. It is going to be discriminatory, however much we care to deny it. It is going to favour the rich—that is the truth of the matter—because we have not made enough exemptions.
We on this side of the House have always prided ourselves on being a party which believes in being fair to individuals. It is those people opposite us, we have said, who are the people who believe in across-the-board State control; they are the people who are dogmatic; they are the people who do not understand individual variations according to indivi-

dual needs. Now we have a tax which does not take fully into consideration the individual needs of different groups of people. VAT will be inflationary, and this inflation will bear worst on those in the lowest income groups.
Like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, we are very concerned indeed that there has been no categorical denial that it will be imposed on food. Like him, too, we are concerned that there has been no guarantee by the Conservative Party that the Government do not intend to placate Europe by imposing VAT on food—not necessarily this Government but any Government to come in future. We want today an assurance that we shall see that in our next election manifesto, and not in the vague terms in which VAT was mentioned in our manifesto last time; we want a categorical statement that VAT will not be introduced on food.
It is already a nonsense that we are introducing it on some foods, the ones which at present are covered by purchase tax. It seems the utmost conceit that we should decide for people what they should eat and what they should not eat and what is good for them and what is bad for them, and what is desirable or undesirable for them. We should leave that amount of self-determination to the people and not decide for them by our fiscal policies. It has always been the policy of the Conservative Party not to control people in that way, not to influence them not to eat chocolate biscuits because we shall charge them more if they do. We claim not to favour across-the-board, insensitive measures, but, as regards food, we certainly have not lived up to our claim.
Nor should we treat food as the only essential requirement of life. There are other essential requirements—clothes, furniture, household goods, all of which will bear this tax, which will fall more heavily on people on the lower incomes, if they are not exempted.
I come to one other odd anomaly, and now I refer to historic churches and other buildings. Many of us on this side of the House feel that we were badly treated because last week, as those of the Treasury Bench will know, their proposal would not have gone through had we not been given an assurance that the


following day there would be a large grant made to historic churches. That statement was made to us sitting here in a determined group, who stayed sitting here for two or three minutes when the Division bells rang, and then we heard that this great grant would be coming the following day. There were enough of us to take away the Government's majority.
What actually came the following day? A short statement, a paragraph in Hansard, upon a Private Member's Bill in Committee, and this is what it said:
Any decision on the provision of funds for grants for the repair of ecclesiastical buildings will have to be taken in the light of all the factors involved, including the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building control and the related question of churches that may be declared redundant under the terms of the Pastoral Measure, 1968."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 12th July, 1972; c. 33.]
That was the great grant which gave the Government their majority that previous night on this other measure.

Mr. William Hamling: The hon. Member should have known better.

Dr. Stuttaford: We took the assurance for what it was, but I think we need an explanation today just why we have not had any grant but that one great statement, because it is important, if we are to have any honesty in politics, that honesty should spread right from the top and all the way down. We should like some careful thought given to that matter in the winding up speech tonight. There is no doubt whatsoever that that other night there were enough of us here to have taken away the Government's majority in the Lobby.
Then, next, there is the question of charities. We learnt that charities would benefit, but many of the older ones will not benefit. Some charities may benefit because of the changes in estate duty and in other taxes in one form and another, but it is the popular charities which will benefit, and there are some charities which are extremely concerned about the effect of this tax. They do not care for it. Ours has always been a party which has said it likes to encourage charities and private enterprise, private enterprise and do it yourself, relying on people to help themselves, rather than being con-

trolled by the State. We should have given more relief for charities than we have done. This, again, is an example of how we have turned against the basic traditions of the Conservative Party, traditions which have meant so much to the Conservative Party associations over the last forty to fifty years, when we were one nation, and when one nation was the aim and not a polling slogan.
We have, too, got to think of one other group, and that is the retailers. There can be no doubt that many of them will have to pay double taxation, from being caught in purchase tax and being caught in value added tax. We have been told that adjustments will be made, that we are to have a pause, but there is a feeling already that the pause is inadequate; a feeling that the consideration which has gone into this is still not enough. That is another matter on which we must have answer tonight.
We must be told very clearly tonight what is to be done to help charities further. A possibility here would be greater tax relief for firms prepared to make grants to charities. At the moment they can only do that to any great extent if what they do is associated with advertising. There should be taxation relief in some way for firms which are today the patrons of art and the patrons of charity as the landed gentry and nobility were in the eighteenth century, and they should receive some tax benefit for acting as such. Charities must receive greater aid. We want to know just how it was that we did not get that greater grant which we were promised for historic ecclesciastical buildings. We want to know what is to be done to reduce the inflationary effect of VAT, because it will be inflationary, just as decimalisation was inflationary, and, like that, will bear hardest on the lower income groups. We want to know what can be done to honour our election pledge that we would make the taxation system simpler. At the moment, we feel, it will be complicated, and will cost more, and mean more civil servants and more money to pay them in collecting the tax. It will be extraordinarily unpopular, and that unpopularity will be with us for many years to come.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich,


South (Dr. Stuttaford) on the radicalism of his speech, bearing in mind, especially, what the Chancellor said when he commended the Bill to the House as an essay in radical taxation reform. Certainly the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, South has a rather different view of what radical tax reform means.
We on this side have described the tax to which the hon. Gentleman was objecting as a monstrous tax, an iniquitous tax. It seems an abuse of terminology to talk of some tax changes in this Bill as reform. Change it may be, but it is certainly not reform. One normally associates the word "reform" with some kind of improvement, some kind of amelioration, for the mass of the population. These tax changes which have come in this Bill will not bring amelioration to the vast majority of the people of this country. There will certainly be changes to the benefit of a few people and, generally, those people who least need this kind of benefit.
One question to which we must address ourselves in looking at the changes in taxation this year, bearing in mind the changes which the Government have already introduced in previous Finance Acts, is the balance between direct and indirect taxation. The balance towards indirect taxation has taken a lurch in the wrong direction in the incidence of particular indirect taxes on particular sections of the community.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer commended some of these tax changes as being changes right across the board—rather reminiscent of the Financial Secretary's comments on VAT. But a change right across the board does not necessarily mean equity. It may mean the oposite of equity—injustice. It is true that VAT is a tax across the board, but that does not mean social justice. The marginal effect on taxation of this sort on the lower paid and the moderately paid is a tremendous attack on their living standards in comparison with the incidence of that tax on the wealthy. The hon. Member for Norwich, South was certainly aware of that.
The public has been denied information about VAT. Discussions on the effects of the tax changes have not been sufficiently widespread in the last few months either in the Press or in the broadcasting media

to give any useful facts or information to the public on what is taking place.
The right hon. Gentleman said that corporation tax had been reduced twice. We know from discussions in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House that the main purpose of the tax changes is to provide investment incentives to business people. No one will pretend that for companies and wealthy individuals these tax changes will mean that the total amount involved will be devoted to investment. How much will seep back into personal consumption by the wealthy? No one can tell. At a time when the Government claim that the less well-off people should exercise restraint, this comes as a strange device.
The right hon. Gentleman, in commenting on the changes in the allowances, said that the tax threshold for a married man with two children is now £1,115. But we have to bear in mind the effect of inflation, largely Government-induced, upon incomes. To receive the same real income as he did, say, three years ago—in the last financial year for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was responsible—a man on £1,200 in that financial year today needs 23 per cent, more pay. The tax threshold might have been raised in one sense, but inflation reduces the tax threshold, and this is a feature of the Finance Bill to which we on this side of the House have drawn attention more than once.
The tax concessions to the wealthy in the Bill come hot on the heels of even greater tax concessions to the wealthy in previous years. I think particularly of aggregation, which some of us regard as a method of tax avoidance. Inasmuch as concessions are made to certain groups of wealthy taxpayers, the deficiency in the tax revenue must be made up by reducing Government expenditure, by relying more on borrowing and therefore paying interest to the very people who are already being given the tax concessions, or by increasing the burden of tax on other people. I suggest that all three devices are being used.
When the right hon. Gentleman claims that taxation is being reduced, I say—whose taxation? Is it across the board, to coin a phrase, or predominantly for certain people? I argue, as I have argued in the last three years, that the Govern-


ment may claim to be reducing taxation but the major reductions are enjoyed by a few wealthy or moderately wealthy people, whereas for the great mass of the population the tax reductions are swallowed up by increased prices, increased charges and by inflation which the Government have allowed to gallop forward in the last two years.
We also have to consider taxation outside the Budget, and this the Government never seem to notice. We have to consider the increased burden of local rates, which is partly the product of the Government's policy. Who knows what the future will hold when the Government produce their plans for local government taxation That is a regressive tax, one which bears just as heavily on the lower paid as does VAT to which the hon. Member for Norwich, South has taken so much exception.
We also have to consider the effect of the devaluation—which is precisely the result of the Government's policy—on prices and on the cost of living. I regard devaluation as an indirect tax which bears particularly heavy on the moderately paid and the lower paid, having regard to its effect on import and export prices and on the cost of food. This is all part of the Government's taxation policy which is concealed by the form of the Finance Bill. Outside the Bill there are changes in customs duties and there is the common agricultural policy. These represent increases in taxation for which the Government are responsible and which bear on the ordinary person.
I come now to VAT. At the last General Election we campaigned universally against VAT. There were no disputes inside the Labour Party at the last election about the disastrous effect of VAT on the lower paid and the moderately paid. I think of the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford. Every one knows that the purpose of this tax change was not to simplify taxes. VAT is not a simple tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot argue that it is a reform brought about merely to simplify our tax system. It is part of the price the Government are paying for entry into the Common Market. It is all the more surprising that so many people are prepared to take our

entry into Europe so lightly and without debate.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that our membership of the Community will give consumers greater freedom of choice. I suppose that for the ordinary person—for example, a working-class mother who has to decide whether to spend her money on a pair of shoes for her children or on a fur coat for herself—the freedom of choice is extended to the extent that the rate of tax will be the same. Such an argument is ludicrous because it takes no account of consumer habits and patterns.
Purchase tax was never applied in the same way as value added tax will be applied. It cannot be said that changing from purchase tax to VAT will give greater freedom of choice to poorer sections of the community. On the contrary, it limits their freedom by increasing their cost of living, and this bears particularly hard on the lower paid. I am certain that the Budget will enhance the freedom of the rich. But this is not why we are sent to the House. We are sent here to provide greater freedom and justice for the majority of people in our society.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, since the revenue to be derived from VAT compares broadly with that flowing from purchase tax and selective employment tax, the effect on the cost of living will be minimal. I do not know anybody outside the House—and this certainly applies to those in business—who is as confident as that. Only an idiot would suppose that changes in SET will reduce the cost of services covered by SET. We know that tax reductions announced at the time of the Budget have already been swallowed by inflation. The consumer has not benefited from those changes. The Bill also ignores the distribution of the burden of VAT. I regard this Measure as grossly inequitable, and this applies to the whole of the Government's taxation policy. I very much support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on this subject.
I turn to a different topic, and that is the subject of revenue. Consideration of revenue matters has not been as widespread in our discussions of the Finance Bill this year as perhaps in previous years, and this is a pity. We have spent


a great deal of time in discussing taxation of companies, corporation tax and VAT, but so far little time has been devoted to revenue. A great many of our Amendments on this topic were not selected and, therefore, have not been discussed. Some of the Amendments which we were allowed to move and speak to produced a negative response from the Treasury Bench.
I have particularly in mind the subject of the taxation of the incomes of women. Although technically it cannot be said to have any direct relevance to some of the questions we have raised, indirectly in regard to some of the discussions we have had on this Bill these are important questions to which I hope the Chief Secretary will refer in his reply.
We must consider the subject of discrimination against women in our tax system. I am not only thinking about the situation of single women, or of the separate assessments which are made, but I am thinking particularly of the single-person heads of families. I am thinking of widows, abandoned wives and divorced wives, single women with dependent relatives and single unmarried women with children—single women who have babies and decide to keep them and bring them up. This is a large category of people in our society and they constitute by far the vast majority of single-person heads of families in this country.
Our taxation system does not take sufficient account of family considerations which affect these women. Our system still treats them as single people when, of course, they have wider responsibilities. They are the heads of families and they have domestic responsibilities which the single person living on his own does not have. Therefore, I hope that the Treasury in the next year will consider some of these revenue considerations, because I have no doubt that we shall return to this subject in next year's Finance Bill.
I should like to echo what was said by my right hon. Friend about incomes policy. This is a matter to which we devoted a great deal of attention upstairs in Committee, and there is no doubt that we have been speaking in terms of incentives for only a majority of society. The vast majority are not considered by the Government to have the same right to be given incentives. But if the Government

want a rational incomes policy they must come off their high horse a little. They must consider the implications of a rational prices and incomes policy. I referred to this matter in my speech in the Budget debate and, indeed, in every speech I have made on finance in the last eight years. At a time when tax changes will be coming into effect and when we are asking the ordinary working man to do so much, the Government should seek to put their own house in order and get their priorities right. Then they can perhaps claim to appeal to the patriotism of the ordinary citizen.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. David Knox: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is not present, because I wished to remind him that it is a calendar month to the day since he made his notorious devaluation speech upstairs in Committee. Fortunately, his speech this afternoon was rather more responsible than his speech on that occasion, although some of his figures leave something to be desired in terms of accuracy.
At one stage the right hon. Gentleman, if I understood him aright, said that as a result of our entry into the Common Market there would in the next 12 months be an increase in prices of 2½ per cent. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has it wrong. There will be an increase in food prices of 2½ per cent. but in terms of the general level of prices this means an increase of rather less than 1 per cent.
I do not mean to be unkind to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East but his speech lasted 53 minutes. This is not the first lengthy speech that he has made since becoming the Opposition's economic spokesman. I commend to him the example of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose speech today lasted 14 minutes—a quarter of the time that the right hon. Gentleman took. The brevity and conciseness of my right hon. Friend's speech should serve as an example to us all.
I make only one brief comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). At one stage he said that there had been a change in the wrong direction in terms of the balance between direct and indirect taxation in the last two years. In fact, since this


Government came to power the proportion of the revenue taken in direct taxation has increased and the proportion taken in indirect taxation has decreased. Judging from the rest of the hon. Gentleman's argument I should have thought that this was what he desired. It is only right to get the facts straight on this issue.
I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly in the final stage of this year's Finance Bill. It seems a very long time since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget on 21st March. Now we have almost reached the end of the road.
The Committee upstairs was a model one. First and probably most important, we did not sit on a single occasion all night. We finished at a sensible and civilised hour each night.

Mr. Hamling: No thanks to the Government.

Mr. Knox: Secondly, the Opposition were responsible and constructive throughout most of the Committee's proceedings without compromising their principles or hiding their strong objections to certain aspects of the Bill. Thirdly, Treasury Ministers were reasonable and flexible throughout the Committee's proceedings, and every hon. Member who served on the Committee was grateful for their attitude in this respect.
There are two main aspects to any Finance Bill. The first is the implementation of the Chancellor's Budget judgment. The second is the reform of the taxation system. Sometimes the reform of taxation is of little significance, though this year, as last year, major reforms have been implemented.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to be congratulated on the scale of his tax reforms, even if such unanimity cannot be achieved on the nature and the details of the reforms. In terms of the scale of the reforms my right hon. Friend has achieved a remarkable degree of success in the two years that he has been in office.
Though the scale of the reforms is impressive and though in the long term the nature and the details of the reforms can contribute to our economic strength. I have no doubt that the most important

aspect of any Finance Bill is the implementation of the Budget judgment. I cannot say—no sensible person can say with absolute certainty—that my right hon. Friend has got it right this year. If I were to venture a view it would be that if anything my right hon. Friend had been cautious in his Budget judgment. But I welcome the general direction to which his Budget judgment and this Finance Bill point.
The overall effect of the Bill is to cut taxes very substantially. This will have the effect of reducing the level of unemployment, of reducing the level of under-employment of both labour and capital in the economy, of operating the economy at a much higher level of activity and of promoting much faster economic growth.
Inevitably there is a time-lag between the introduction of these measures and their being fully effective. Nevertheless I am sure that the policy which my right hon. Friend has embarked upon in this Finance Bill is correct because I have no doubt that the lack of growth in the British economy is far and away the most serious defect that we have suffered since the end of the war. I am equally certain that economic growth should be the first priority of economic policy. The fact is that the British people expect this. They demand it. They will always get rid of politicians who fail to deliver the goods. If right hon. and hon. Gentlement opposite really want to know why they lost the last General Election, I can tell them that it was because they failed in this respect. It seems certain that this Government, too, will be dispensed with by the electorate at the next General Election if we fail to produce economic growth. The electorate is right in this respect. It seems to me that growth should be the principal aim of any economic policy.

Mr. George Cunningham: How do we get it?

Mr. Knox: By pursuing policies of the sort that we have adopted and by expanding the economy. We appear to have embarked upon such a policy now.
To those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are concerned about the effect of the growth policy on inflation I say that we have tried Professor Paish's


theories. We have tried to reduce inflation by having a higher level of employment. The theory was that there would be no cost inflation if this were done. It has not worked. Anyone who doubts that has only to cast his mind back to the coal miners' strike. Does anyone suppose that the fact that there were a million people out of work at that time in any way reduced the cost inflation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. But debate on the Third Reading is much narrower than this. The hon. Gentleman is going into broad economic problems and policies. His remarks should be confined to the Bill itself.

Mr. Knox: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was dealing with the part of the Bill which concerned my right hon. Friend's Budget judgment. However, I was about to leave it, anyway.
I turn to the value added tax. This is a part of the Finance Bill which I welcome warmly. I do so not just because I am a strong supporter of British entry to the European Economic Community. I do it also because I believe that as far as any tax can be a good one the VAT is such a tax. Apart from anything else, it is a great improvement on the taxes that it replaces. Both purchase tax and selective employment tax were bad taxes by any standards. We have heard arguments from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite today, just as we heard arguments put forward in Committee, against the VAT. But almost every argument applied with even greater force to the taxes which the VAT replaces. For many reasons purchase tax and the SET were very bad taxes.
The first main advantage of the VAT is that, because it involves the replacement of two taxes, the overall effect is bound to be a simplification of the tax structure. There will be difficulties in the first year or two. It is too easy to say that because it is new it is a difficult and complicated tax. Nevertheless the overall result is bound to be a simplification in the tax structure.
Secondly, the VAT has a wider coverage than purchase tax did. What is more, the VAT has only one positive rate. In my view this will help remove anomalies in the tax structure and make the system

fairer. It will not remove all the anomalies and it will not make the system 100 per cent. fair, but it will be a move in the right direction.
Thirdly, value added tax will, except for a few limited cases in the early stages after being implemented, avoid the sort of double taxation, which took place with purchase tax and selective employment tax. Certain commodities were subject to both taxes one way or another.
Fourthly, value added tax is much less discriminatory than purchase tax or SET and will, therefore, be neutral in its effects and will help to eliminate the distortions of consumers' choice which took place with purchase tax.
Fifthly, the form of value added tax which we have introduced in this country will be much fairer than the present system of taxation because it will not be applied to food and housing. As the House knows, SET affects both of these items.
Sixthly—this is very important—value added tax is rebate able on exports and will be charged on imports. Here again, there is an advantage over the previous system of indirect taxation.
The final advantage of value added tax is important also, though it has not been heard much in our discussions on the matter. Because valued added tax will be levied at every stage of production, there will be a much clearer identification between costs incurred and profits taken and the tax levied. It will, therefore, be obvious to producers that if costs and profits are increased the tax will increase as well and that if costs and profits are reduced the tax paid will be reduced. There will, therefore, be a much stronger incentive to people to keep costs and profits steady and even to cut them than at the moment.
There is another point which I should like to make before leaving VAT. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary a question about VAT as applied to further education. In Committee, both on the Floor of the House and upstairs, my hon. Friend said that the Government's intention was to exempt from value added tax colleges of education, polytechnics and other institutions of further education. However, accepting that there was some doubt about the drafting of Schedule 5 concerning this matter, he agreed to have the matter


considered by the draftsman and, if necessary, to table a suitable Amendment. No such Amendment has been tabled. Will he confirm, when he winds up the debate, that institutions of further education will be exempt from VAT?
Finally, I refer to the car tax. I must declare an interest. I have been associated with the motor industry for about 10 years. I regret the introduction of this tax not because of any representations which have been made to me by my employers or anyone else but because I believe it is a great mistake.
The motor industry is one of the key growth industries in this country and it has been clobbered time and again by successive Governments. Between 1965 and 1970 the demand for motor cars produced by the British motor industry fell marginally while the demand for cars produced by Common Market countries increased by 50 per cent. This came about directly as a result of the Government's Measures. It meant restriction of British output. British manufacturers' unit costs were higher than those of their competitors in Europe. It also meant that profits in the British motor car industry were restricted, and this had an inhibiting effect on the scale of research and development in the industry, with consequent effects on its future competitive position.
It seems regrettable that, having damaged the British motor car industry so much in recent years, we should now put on it this extra tax burden of 10 per cent. I should have thought that if we applied VAT as it is to be applied to other goods and services, it would be much fairer and would give the British motor car industry an opportunity to expand and compete with all the most advanced motor car industries in the world. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider removing this tax at the earliest possible moment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: The part of the speech of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) with which I felt most in disagreement was the part to which you, Mr. Speaker, took exception on grounds of order. Therefore I should not follow him into

that subject. However, his explanation of the failure to obtain growth and his means of correcting that situation are too superficial. The reasons for our failure are more deep-seated than inadequate demand in the country and are to be expressed more in terms of what seems to be a secular decline in the level of enterprise and efficiency. There, rather than the level of demand, lies the secret.
Reference has been made to the extent and depth of the scrutiny that has been given to the Bill in Committee both on the Floor of the House and upstairs. It is as well not to let this occasion pass without saying that the methods we adopt for scrutinising the Finance Bill are inadequate in modern conditions. It is not possible in a Standing Committee of the kind we operate to go into a Bill of great technical complexity in the manner necessary to give it the attention which it deserves.
The innovation of looking at the Finance Bill in Committee partly of the whole House and partly upstairs is of relatively short standing; but surely, even after such a short trial, it is obviously necessary to go on to something more radical. The Bill should be looked at on a Select Committee basis so that we can get directly at the civil service advisers to Ministers concerning some of the Clauses and perhaps at other expert witnesses as a preliminary to our normal discussion in Standing Committee. It is high time that we had a Committee of this House to look not at the Finance Bill but at taxation, so that, without having to look at the terms of the Bill, it will be possible to consider the options available, to take expert evidence, and to clarify many issues. Few things affect millions of people so closely in their daily lives and are discussed so little in detail in this House as the taxation system.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed today, as he has claimed on many days, to be the greatest reforming Chancellor, not of all time but for a very long time. This is an entirely bogus reputation which he is building up for himself with the assistance of some of the Press.
A great deal is wrong with our taxation system, in both its policy content and form. On one or two aspects of its form the Chancellor has made some wee,


modest improvements. However, to abolish the surtax office is not an extensive reform. Of course it should have been done before. The Chancellor is absolutely entitled to take credit for doing something which should have been done before. But it is not a deep-seated reform of the taxation system to say that instead of paying income and surtax and having to write a few cheques, one will in future have it all run together in one payment.
Nor is it a deep reform of the taxation system to abolish the earned income relief and to go over to the system which will apply from April next year. Both of those should have been done long ago—they were pretty obvious. The reputation of being a great reforming Chancellor should be based on something more fundamental than that. For example, if the Chancellor wants to deserve a reputation for being a reformer, he might have a look at the distinction between tax allowances and outgoings. That, too, is a small matter, but he might as well rope it in if he wants to try to deserve his reputation.
The maintenance of the distinction between some forms of tax relief and other forms is responsible for excessive amounts of tax relief being made available for some forms of expenditure. An outgoing is an expenditure which is treated as a deduction from total rates to obtain one's income figure, and should logically have no upper limit. One or two tax reliefs which are currently treated as outgoings, if re-classified as tax allowances, would normally be given an upper limit. That applies particularly to the tax relief which is available for loans for house buying and house improvement, and the new tax relief, the restored relief, for interest payments on all loans.
That brings me to the feature of the Bill which is the most iniquitous. The Chancellor did not offer today, and has not done so in the past to my knowledge, a logical defence of the re-introduction of tax allowance for interest payment on loans such as loans for house purchase. At a time when everybody accepts that our principal economic difficulty is inflation, to say to people, "Borrow money, pay the interest rate which you have to pay at commercial

rates, and we will subsidise it down for you by a minimum of 30 per cent. and possibly a maximum of 70 per cent.", is simply stupid.
Of course, the Government thought that they had to re-introduce the allowance because they were foolish enough to put it in their election manifesto. But the country should not be expected to pay the price for the bad preparation of the Conservative Party's election manifesto. Not only have the few Socialist newspapers criticised this change, but a number of Conservative newspapers have been surprised that the Government saw fit at this time to introduce the change. There is no logical justification for it and it will certainly be inflationary. When one compares the basis upon which this relief is being re-introduced with the basis upon which it existed up to 1969, one finds that it is worse than it was before. Those who borrow small amounts, up to £400 or £500, the amount appropriate, for example, for buying a car, will not get tax relief, while those who borrow above that amount will do so. There will be a re-emergence of the kind of endowment insurance schemes which were being pushed a great deal in the year preceding the abolition of the relief in 1969. They were schemes designed explicitly to take advantage of this tax relief.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has taken note of the changes that were made in the Finance Act, 1968, which dealt primarily with the insurance problem to which he is drawing attention and which are not being altered. It is the change made in the 1969 Act that is being repealed.

Mr. Cunningham: I confess that I am not fully acquainted with the point that the Chief Secretary has mentioned. However, as I read the Bill, any borrowing will qualify for interest relief. I instanced the insurance scheme dodge because that was the best dodge, as one received tax relief on the borrowed money and also tax relief on the insurance premium. That was the best fiddle in the world.
Even if some of those schemes are barred—it may be that some such schemes will be barred—by the continuing legislation, it will still be possible to get the relief upon the borrowing even if not


the relief upon the insurance element. Since it is the relief upon the borrowing which is the largest relief, I am sure that the subsidy element to people participating in these schemes will be almost as much as before, even if it is, as I did not realise, slightly reduced.
Tax relief on life insurance premiums is long overdue for re-examination. I accept that it is one of the few successful ways of providing a fiscal incentive to saving and providing a tax relief for life insurance policies. But there is a great distinction between the rigorous policing and conditions which apply to the premiums paid to a private pension scheme, under the Finance Act, 1956, and the conditions applying to receiving tax relief on normal life insurance policies. Under the 1956 Act, any money paid into a private pension scheme must stay there—one can never get it out before one retires. Nor can it be used as a security. On the other hand, money put into a life insurance policy, upon which tax relief has been enjoyed, may be taken out, so long as it is after the first fiscal year, and the tax relief will not be lost.
If the Chancellor wants to deserve the reputation of being a reformer, that matter is long overdue of reform. A person who is entitled under present legislation to have, for example, £150 on every extra £1,000 of his income not subject to tax, will have that proportion increased to approximately £215. It is a means by which the tax-free element in any increase in salary is increased. I hope that if not the present Government then a future Labour Government will look at this fiddle. It is one of the loopholes which are available to everyone but of which only the rich are in a position to take advantage.
If we want to provide fiscal incentives to save, then we need to look at one of the more obvious ways of doing so, as well as one of the most humane ways, which would be to provide more generous tax relief for persons over retirement age, however one cares to define retirement age. The exemption or relief which we provide now is marginal. We could give much more generous relief at that level. That would constitute a fiscal incentive to saving. It would be a relief which would get general support as it would

be designed to benefit those who have given a life's work to the community and who now can properly be allowed to enjoy the fruits of that work without an undue proportion being taken for the costs of society. That is the sort of matter which could be looked at by the kind of committee of this House on taxation reform which we should have.
Another improvement would be to transform tax reliefs from being reductions in the amount of income which is taxable to being reductions in the amount of tax which is payable. In the Bill, the system is retained whereby any tax reliefs which is given constitutes a greater benefit to the rich man than to the poor man, even as between two taxpayers. If we were to make a change to cash reductions in the amount of tax which is payable, our tax system, which is not at all progressive, would become that little bit more progressive than it is now. The myth in this country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Cunningham: I will try to do so, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the Government have regrettably failed to put into the Bill much of what I wish they had put into it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman is not allowed to point out on Third Reading.

Mr. Cunningham: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I shall skip the next part of my intended speech.
The result of the changes introduced in the Finance Act, 1971, which have been taken a little further in this Bill and will be taken still further next year, is to make the taxation system less progressive than it was before. I would argue with great firmness that it is in exactly the contrary diection that we ought to be pointing. There is no evidence for the Government's view that the profile of the taxation incidence as it has existed is responsible for any lack of enterprise. There is plenty of evidence for believing that the profile is such that it is seen by the man on rather less than average earnings as being very unfair to him. I accept that in part this is due to his believing that he is paying


more tax than he actually is paying and that the reforms which will come next year will improve his position modestly. But the main feature of the system as it now exists and, even more so, as it will exist after the changes made in the Bill, is that, leaving aside the very richest, we have a relatively high incidence of taxation upon the man with average earnings and a bit below, and a relatively low incidence of taxation upon people, let us say, on £5,000 or £6,000 or £7,000 a year.
Then we have a large number of loopholes to allow the person on £4,000 or £5,000 or more a year to reduce his tax paid considerably below what he ought to be paying. To say to trade unionists who are trying to get a higher share of pre tax incomes, "You cannot have it except to the extent that your productivity increases" sounds ill coming from a Government who are making the tax system more regressive. It is not the case that the working people should get an increase in buying power only to the extent that there is an increase in productivity because the distribution of the cake at the moment is unfair.
What we want to achieve is a redistribution of the post-tax buying power. One can do this by altering pre-tax incomes or one can correct it a little by altering the tax system. What the Government are doing by the Bill and in other legislation is attempting to freeze the ratio of pre-tax income as between the rich and the poor and then, by the taxation system, to alter the distribution of post-tax incomes in a direction favourable to those who are well-off. This is a highly regressive Bill and I hope that a Labour Government will reverse it rapidly.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Third Reading of any Finance Bill represents in a sense the culmination of a very long and agonising political process which starts with each General Election and progresses through the life of any Parliament. I imagine, therefore, that many of us realise that after each election there will be represented in the Finance Bill a view of the distribution of incomes. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) has just prodded the House with the terms "fair" and "unfair" as

applied to the distribution of incomes. This goes to the heart of the question.
I sometimes have an apocalyptic vision that hon. Members opposite may at some stage be in Government again, with the Conservatives sitting opposite. The then Labour Government will introduce a Finance Bill, as we would expect, increasing surtax and capital gains tax and skewing all the distribution of wealth in the general direction regarded by them as correct, equitable and fair.
What I find strange is that when the Conservative Party is in Government, representing an alternative view of the distribution of wealth in our society—a different view of what is fair and unfair—which we have put to the country in such a way that we have been returned to power, and we then produce a Finance Bill which skews the distribution of wealth in a different way, hon. Members opposite do not, as one is entitled to expect, say, "We disapprove and disagree with it, but it is after all what the Government were returned to do."
I come, therefore, to what I believe to be a rather more fundamental aspect. We are not simply talking about the equity of the matter, about the fairness or unfairness of a particular view of the distribution of wealth, represented in the Opposition by a Lorenz curve well to the left and on this side of the House by a Lorenz curve well to the right. What we must consider in any Bill is whether the distribution of wealth proposed is effective or ineffective. This is a much wider criterion, going beyond, although it must embrace and include, the question of equity.
It is important to make the point that we cannot take the simple view in the House of Commons that this is a ratchet which works only one way, that when a Labour Government produce a Finance Bill the ratchet of Socialism can move forward and that is equitable, not divisive and is acceptable, whereas when the Conservatives return to power and do the opposite, as we said we would do because we believe that the Labour Party has gone too far by over-taxing, they are being inequitable and divisive. It is inherent in the democratic process that we should be allowed to put this kind of view without being criticised as being divisive, which is precisely what the Opposition are now doing.
I fully support the Bill because it is doing what we said we would do—pull the ratchet back. It does something else that we should not lose sight of. It is promoting a distribution of wealth which will be more effective in the sense that it will enable this society of ours to increase much more dramatically its total production of wealth. Therefore, in line with our views, we believe that the size of the cake and the whole set of processes which contribute to its size are much more important in the long run than those processes which merely affect its distribution.
Only today we read that in the United States the medium income is now 10,000 dollars, which means that half the income earners there now enjoy a gross income of over 10,000 dollars—about £4,000—a year. That is 30 million people. It is an immense achievement and is the goal at which we should be aiming, whatever flaws there may be in that society.
There are one or two points, emphasised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), to which I must draw attention before proceeding to some figures which will interest the House. In referring to the salaries proposed for judges, the right hon. Gentleman over and over again used gross figures. It is most misleading to use such figures, but right hon. and hon. Members opposite invariably use them. I can understand that.

Mr. Healey: I know very well the point which the hon. Gentleman is about to make, but he will do me the justice of admitting that I talked all the time about take-home pay and pointed out that the take-home pay of the judges was being increased by the Budget by 20 per cent., apart from any formal increase in salary.

Mr. Lloyd: I know that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to take-home pay. He was challenged on the figure of 20 per cent. and he refused to reply. He should have pointed out that the increase applied to a much longer period. One can talk about take-home pay, but seldom is it done. Seldom are judgments made about the distribution of wealth implicit in a Finance Bill based on the net income after tax. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that anyone drawing £15,000 a year who is

given a gross increase of £1,000 takes home nothing like £1,000. If one applies to the net increase in his income the cost of living factors which apply over the period to which the increase applies, one arrives at a realistic figure which is in the lower hundreds. We can talk sensibly only on the basis of real income after tax and adjustments for the cost of living.
The right hon. Gentleman implied throughout that the income of almost everyone—whether rich or poor, judge or dockyard worker—was given to him in trust by the State. Apparently, it was not his; he did not earn it; he did not own it. But if the State, by adjusting the taxation process, allowed him to keep a little more, the State was being very generous in giving back to him something which belonged to the State and not to him. The right hon. Member knows that others take a different view. I do. I believe that every man's income belongs first to himself because he earned it. Most of us earn it by the sweat of our brow. If we earn it, surely it belongs to us and the tax system which is applied to it legitimately leaves us with something which is already ours and takes from us something which was ours in the first place.

Mr. George Cunningham: No one disagrees with that.

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to hear it because often when I listen to hon. Members opposite speak on the subject I get the opposite impression.
Central to the Bill must be the philosophy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his approach to the question of inflation. I sense from most of the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the perhaps important but very small and percentage-wise dramatically small, number of incomes at the top or bottom of the Lorenz curve are immensely significant because of their psychological effect.
The House should have the facts on the question of incomes. The latest figures published in the Inland Revenue Statistics for 1972 show that there are throughout the country 253,000 people out of 21·7 million with an income of over £5,000. There are only three sections in the statistics—people earning over £5,000, people earning over £10,000 and people earning over £20,000. A dramatic change


takes place after tax has been deducted. No longer are there 253,000 people earning over £5,000. Indeed, the top category has virtually disappeared. In fact, there is a mere 77,000 people earning over £5,000 and the total figure remains the same—21·7 million people.
The Inland Revenue Survey of Personal Incomes for 1969–70, which gives the latest figures available, shows that there are 86,000 people earning over £8,000 before tax. Again, there is a dramatic change after tax is deducted. A mere 4,000 people draw £37 million out of the total income paid in society of £24,197 million.
In these circumstances, how can the right hon. Member for Leeds, East say, on either statistical or economic terms, that this very small, minute top slice of incomes is of such dramatic influence that what we do in respect of them by total confiscatory taxation will have a significant impact on the basic inflationary situation? I do not believe that the case can be made out for a moment.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is not the hon. Gentleman falling into the "Zachariah" philosophy? I have a very small number of people in my constituency whose names begin with "Z". On that basis, I am prepared to argue that all people whose name begins with "Z" should not be taxed. But it would make no difference to the rest of us. Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument of the same character?

Mr. Lloyd: No, it is not. I do not think that this group of people should not be taxed or that they should not be taxed heavily. The Lorenz curves produced by the Inland Revenue—and they are logarithmic curves—show that the number of people at both ends of the scale can be measured in hundreds and that those in the middle can be measured in millions. Inflation is basically a product of everything above the point which I indicate as shown on these curves.
I make only one exception to my argument. Plainly examples must be set, and examples are important, but I return to what I said at the beginning of my remarks. If the basic philosophical approach of the Government to the distribution of wealth is inherently and demonstrably different from that of the Opposition, we must be entitled, as a

matter of right, to govern according to our philosophy and not according to that of the Opposition. This we are being continually, perhaps understandably, pressed to do. I find the argument wholly unconvincing because in a sense it is undemocratic that there is only one way in which to govern, and that is according to the philosophy on the distribution of wealth held by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a very important and interesting argument with which I disagree in many respects, but, accepting his belief that his party views things differently, he must apply it throughout the scale. If the very rich are entitled to the maximum which they can obtain because they do good for the economy and are entitled to large rewards, the hon. Gentleman cannot forbid it to the unions or others who are also competing in a competitive society and must obtain as much as they can. That, in my view, is the reason for the present trouble.

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely accept that if one adduces the argument that the rich or top 1 per cent. of society is entitled to support politically the party which says, "We believe that the skewing of the distribution of wealth has gone too far against you", the rest of society is entitled to say, "We support the party which disagrees with that". But one cannot carry that argument to the point of saying that when the parties change office the party which won on the basis of the argument that it had gone too far the other way—and, according to the Lorenz curve we are talking not about the top 1 per cent, but about the distribution of wealth throughout the incomes structure—should not have the legitimate right to govern and to distribute wealth in such a way that accords basically with the philosophy on which it won the General Election.
This is a fundamental argument, and is of the greatest importance and significance. My objection to much of what has been said is simply this. We were returned to power having said to the country that it has been over-taxed for too long and that the ratio of top incomes to the lowest incomes has fallen too much; it is even below that of Soviet Russia. If we compare the general tax


structure in our society as it existed before the election in 1970 with that in all the societies with which this country was, and still is basically competing, and we see that the distribution of tax and the operation of the immensely complicated and weighted tax system is reducing the capacity of society to increase its output of wealth, we are entitled to govern on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was hoping for a radical reversal of the situation. That is precisely what we hoped for, what we argued for and what we demonstrated was necessary before the General Election. The radical reversal is going the other way, and hon. Gentlemen opposite must like it or lump it.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The three back-bench speeches from the other side of the House had one thing in common. At various points they created varying degrees of discomfiture on the Government Front Bench. I know what all this talk from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) about a radical reversal and one-way ratchets is about. The Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted that £1,000 million had gone to those earning one-and-a-half times, or less, the national average income. This is out of £1,200 million, and £200 million goes in personal allowances to those who have more than one-and-a-half times the national average. To save time, I refer the House to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said about the compression of differentials. To get any kind of a policy that is acceptable to millions of people and do that kind of a giveaway is just not on.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) launched a portentous attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, who, heaven knows, is capable of defending himself, but I saw the Chancellor become somewhat uneasy because, as soon as we had all this bombast from the hon. Member for Leek about the "notorious speech of 19th June" we recollect that it was that Chancellor, sitting in that place, who only a few months ago during his Budget speech invited us to have a free discussion on devaluation. He said that devaluation

was now a subject of free discussion and we could all talk about it with no inhibitions. All I say to the Chancellor and to the hon. Member for Leek is that they cannot have it both ways. It is either one or the other. Either talk about devaluation is to be encouraged, or it is not. If my right hon. Friend is to be criticised, so then is the Chancellor in great measure.
Most devastating of all was the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). What really came through was the sense of sheer let-down that he had. He felt that he had been deceived. I am sorry that he is not in his place because if he were he could deny what I have said if it is not correct. What came through was that he felt that he had been conned because of the difference between the promises that were made on 12th July during the debate on charities, in particular in relation to churches, and what happened upstairs in Committee during the debate on a Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) when it came to a discussion of the preservation of churches. The devastating, damaging phrase used by the hon. Member for Norwich, South was that "the Government know perfectly well that the lobby in favour of the churches was greater than the Government majority." What could be plainer than that of the hon. Gentleman's sense of let-down and the feeling that he had been conned?
What is the policy here? On 12th July it was my understanding that some fairly definite announcement would be made on this issue, as on children's shoes and on a number of other matters, before we came to the Third Reading of the Bill. What is to be the policy on children's shoes? Medical advisers are available in Alexander Fleming House. The Government have had ample time, and they should have come to the House before the Third Reading and told us precisely what they were going to do.
There is a real problem about smaller football clubs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) knows, we have not ceased to receive representations, some of which have spelled out the fact that it is no exaggeration to say that on top of the


Wheatley Committee proposals for renovations for purposes of crowd control the Government's proposals mean that some of the smaller clubs—I am not referring to Arsenal, Celtic or any of the other big clubs—will be in real financial difficulty.
I have received some serious representations from youth hostels, and the view of Mr. Ballantyne, the secretary of the Scottish youth hostel at Stirling, is that they are in serious trouble.
Finance Bills are a continuous process, and one purpose of the Third Reading is really to enable us to set down markers for next year, because we know that if we are to be candid there is little that we can do this year to alter the Bill. I should like to refer to something that was discussed at length on various Amendments that were proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) and myself on the issue of pollution, using the fiscal system, and particularly about recycling.
I call in aid the speech to the TUC Conference on the Environment of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). He said:
Worldwide, people are demanding higher qualities of environment. Those industrial nations that are developing goods which are quieter and cleaner than other nations are, for that very quality, going to have expanding markets.
It is for that sort of reason that the tax system has to be biased towards creating, in the design stage, that quality of goods, because the concept that we have had throughout of the gross national product is a misleading concept. We should substitute for it the gross national wellbeing, because this would involve not only the quantity of money, which does not measure all that we want, but also the quality of life.
Throughout our discussions, especially in Committee upstairs, there has been a confusion by many of us between the Big and the Good. To explain—a farmer doing the gross and net return from his acres must do his accounts on the basis that his land, including hedges, ditches and water courses, is in as good heart at the end of the year as at the beginning. To keep it so is the principle of all good husbandry and a condition of most farming leases. Output reckoned, or income gained, at the expense of the

deterioration of the land is an illusion. Yet this is precisely what we do if we simply add up the GNP and derive from it the figures of economic growth.
We have to look at what we are up against if we impoverish the land—look at the Soil Report for the West Midlands—if we exhaust the mines—look at the sad history of the shale oil industry in West Lothian—if we misuse the quarries—the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) will agree with this—if we abuse natural gas—look at what is happening in the North Sea—and if we poison the rivers that are used for angling. This is a net loss.
Hitherto, with exceptions, the only yardstick by which we have measured such happenings is the value of the product that we get out, plus paid-for services, or the incomes of those who produce or render them. It is against that background that we have to use the tax system. This is not the same as a fiscal policy for limiting growth. Limiting growth is a bit of an ill-conceived argument.
On behalf of the United Kingdom delegation, of which I had the honour to be a member, at the Second Inter-Parliamentary Conference on the Environment at Vienna, I proposed a Motion which was accepted unanimously after a good deal of discussion by some fairly hardened politicians not only from Europe but from Africa, Canada, and Australia. It called on national Governments to consider three things: first, what help can be given to the recycling industry; secondly, what tax can be added to scarce materials, such as copper; thirdly, how purchase tax or VAT on consumer durables can be related to the potential life-span of the article. It was decided that
Conference believes that such measures can only be introduced on the basis of international co-operation, putting no individual country at a commercial disadvantage.
It is understood, as made clear in the discussions upstairs, that it is the Government's policy to internationalise the costs of pollution. This is fairly easy provided it is not done for an export industry, but significant State aid is necessary for the development and protection of the recycling industry. This industry must be cradled and cherished through the tax system like any other given industry on which national welfare directly depends.


I give two examples to the House. Tyres can be transformed into granules and re-cycled in that way. Glass can be recycled into material for road-filling and many other purposes. Help of this kind, is the way in which I should like to see the fiscal system next year become more helpful by giving tax advantages for joint local authority/private enterprise recycling installations.
I should like to see a mineral tax, highest for copper, which on present estimates will be finished first, and lowest, perhaps, for iron, which on present estimates will last longest. If the projections change, so should the tax. It is not difficult, because the current oil tax can be easily adjusted. But such taxes have to be harmonised internationally.
I come to motor taxation. Surely we should look at a system of a high tax in the first year, tailing off to nil after a number of years. There is a certain advantage to the motor industry in building longer lasting, though, I concede, more expensive, cars. This might not appeal to Sir Donald Stokes at first, but it raises the whole question of the use of materials. An alternative way of doing this would be to give special tax advantages to cars that lend themselves to being easily melted down at the end of their useful life.
I should like to return to what was said in Committee on the whole question of car pollution. ICI announced last November a development of a dual catalyst system, which it claims will meet the 1976 United States emission standards. The catalyst material was not revealed, and ICI has to remain silent about the details for obvious reasons of commercial security. But British Leyland believes in the two-catalyst system. This is a concrete example in which there ought to be tax advantages to persuade manufacturers at the design stage—this is crucial—to build into their designs this type of anti-pollution material.
I should like to see purchase tax or value added tax on durables related to their intended lifespan and their potential for being recycled. This again would have to be done at the design stage. I dispute what the Minister of State said in Committee on 15th June. I shall not read it all out, but the burden of it was

that it was so difficult to establish standards. I repeat the point I made in Committee. With all these Government research establishments, it is not as difficult as all that.
The Treasury operates much better as a home side than when playing away. What I mean by that is that when it is making decisions which are internal Treasury decisions it is much more rational than when it depends on outside evidence, be it from the Department of Health or, in this case, the Department of Education and Science, which is responsible for the research facilities. When the Treasury has to get advice, it seems that its decisions are less imaginative than when it is a purely internal Great George Street decision.
I hope that next year, on many of the Measures that are introduced, we shall copy the United States and have an environmental impact assessment of every Measure. The Americans do it—I claim no originality for it—and so should we. On every tax change, where relevant, we ought to have an environmental impact assessment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, when interviewed by George Scott on Friday night, said that politicians had to be interested in the pace at which measures became acceptable to the British people.
But in case the Treasury think that these are somewhat esoteric ideas, after the recycling Amendment I had a large group of letters and quite unusual correspondence. For instance, Dr. Simnett of the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne said:
Our public meetings regularly attract audiences of over 100 people which is not bad for a foggy winter's night on such an inglamourous subject as sewage disposal.
I have sent to the Department a long letter from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, which has gone into these subjects in depth and a long memorandum from a Mr. Green of Huntingdonshire, one of many memoranda.
There is considerable public interest in this kind of idea. In the coming months the Treasury would be well advised to see what can be done. I realise that there are complexities and difficulties, but I do not see that there is a better opportunity than the Third Reading of the Finance Bill to stake out, in as constructive a


way as one can, what one would like to see in next year's Bill, which is only six months away and which will begin to be built soon.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Piers Dixon: I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will excuse me for not following his labyrinthine arguments on the problems of pollution in his constituency and in mine.
I will address my remarks to one of the statements made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when talking about fiscal honesty. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that one of the reasons we should not have value added tax in this country was that it would invite Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and others to be as dishonest as Frenchmen. Perhaps I have rather an old-fashioned, Victorian view about fiscal morality. I believe that the British are naturally more honest, and have been more honest for an extended period, than the great majority of Europeans. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reason that there was more fiscal dishonesty in France was that France had a broadly-based indirect tax. He said that the reason why there was a relatively small amount of fiscal dishonesty in Britain was that purchase tax was on such a narrow base.
I wish that the right hon. Gentleman were in the Chamber now, because he could contest the following argument. Why is it that in Britain, where we have an extremely large amount of direct taxation, we pay it, whereas in France, where there is a small amount of direct taxation, even so the French are notoriously dishonest about their payment of income tax?
The right hon. Gentleman has got the argument upside down. The one reason why we are able with confidence to bring VAT into this country without a very great risk is precisely that the British people have, by long tradition, been fiscally honest.
One of the reasons why Socialism has been such an easy thing to bring into this country and will in the future be such an easy thing to extend—unless all of us are very careful—is that whatever the British people think of their Government, they will always pay their taxes. Britain is the ideal country into which to

introduce Socialism. It is much more difficult to do it in France or Italy.
In my constituency, in Truro and St. Austell, we are extremely happy about value added tax as a whole. I congratulate my right hon. Friend. I am sure that that applies generally in the country. However, the traders of Truro and St. Austell are unhappy about the transitional arrangements. I know that my right hon. Friend has problems. The transitional period cannot be too short, because it would serve no purpose; it cannot be too long, because there is the danger of its distorting the whole economic pattern at the end of this year and the beginning of next year.
There will have to be an announcement later this year about the length of the transitional period. I hope that my right hon. Friend, before making that announcement, will tell us the latest date on which he will be making the announcement. In other words, there should be three dates—the date, I hope not too far ahead, when my right hon. Friend will say "I shall be making the announcement on such-and-such a date"; the second date would be the date on which my right hon. Friend would actually make the announcement; the third date would be the date on which the transitional period would begin.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the great reforming Chancellor of this generation. I hope that in future years we shall have as little fiscal legislation as possible.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: Voltaire said that taxation was the art of plucking a goose to obtain the maximum amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing. I would not want to carry the analogy too far. I will content myself with saying that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is a very clever man. The art of taxation was never understood by anyone in the Labour Government, because they grabbed for whole handfuls of feathers, and the goose, when it hissed, dealt with them appropriately.
Hon. Members have criticised the Bill. There are many things in it which are, perhaps, open to criticism. The Bill is rather like a Christmas pudding—there


are plenty of three penny bits in it for those who are looking for them. One is the tax exemption on gifts to charities. The most important from the point of view of removing inequality is relief from estate duty for the surviving spouse. Many times during the last two years we have heard of the inequality arising when a widow has had to sell the domestic home to raise the money to pay estate duty. My right hon. Friend can be congratulated on this score, even if it were the only one, but there are plenty of others. Charities and other institutions do very well out of the provisions relating to estate duty.
One thing which has not been mentioned today but for which the public will be very grateful is the reduction in stamp duty on conveyances and leases. The limit has been raised from £10,000 to £15,000. The post-war credit relief is another worthwhile change. Hundreds of thousands of people are already enjoying the benefits of their post-war credits. Another well-thought-out and worthwhile reform is that in respect of vehicle excise duty for disabled persons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) said that consideration should be given to the tax on cars being 10 per cent. When this matter was first brought to the public gaze some months ago, I was in correspondence with my right hon. Friend and he confirmed in a letter to me that, although purchase tax at that time stood at over 30 per cent. on motor cars, the comparable figure under value added tax would be only 20 per cent. There is no case for there being a further reduction of taxes on motor cars.
I am an anti-polluter. I have had my car fitted with liquefied petroleum gas. I know that my right hon. Friend is concerned about this, because in his wisdom he has imposed duty at the rate of only 50 per cent. of the whole rate on this worthwhile fuel, which does not pollute the atmosphere. If concessions are to be made to the motor industry, that industry should make concessions to the public by making vehicles which are as anti-pollutant as possible.
Group 7 in Schedule 5 is concerned with health. Two groups of services are omitted. The first omission, which I

sought to rectify by an Amendment tabled in Standing Committee, although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, is family planning aids, services and medicines obtained not under a doctor's certificate. A person who purchases his family planning aids without the aid of a prescription, perhaps from long experience knowing exactly which aid is needed, will have to pay 10 per cent. VAT. Young people get their family planning needs from many sources, including dispensers at universities and shops which provide this service, and they, too, will have to pay VAT. The anomaly is that they would not have to pay VAT if they bothered a doctor. We know how hard worked general practitioners are. Britain is at long last trying to create a society in which family planning aids are no longer things of secret. We are hoping that more family planning clinics will be opened. It is wrong that the Bill should penalise people who virtually provide a family planning service for themselves.
Second, osteopaths are omitted from the list of the professional people who provide services. I have received letters from osteopaths pointing out this anomaly. Some of the letters have mentioned that perhaps my right hon. Friend has not suffered from back trouble, though I am sure that even if he had suffered from it he would not allow that to influence him. Osteopaths are highly respected professionals in medicine whose services will attract the 10 per cent. VAT.
Clause 38 prescribes the penalties for fraudulent evasion of tax. VAT will bring in a completely new and increasing number of small retailers who have not hitherto dealt with purchase tax, because they have paid the purchase tax on buying the goods from the wholesaler. They will now have to deduct the tax and account to Customs and Excise. Mistakes can be made, especially in the first year or two. Newgate Prison is closed. We no longer transport people to Australia. It is a terrible thought that anybody getting the wrong side of the Customs and Excise is liable to a maximum of two years' imprisonment. Such a penalty is generally imposed for a serious offence such as manslaughter. Let my right hon. Friend increase the fines by all means, but it is wrong to have the threat of imprisonment for evasion of the tax.
Clause 41 deals with bankruptcy proceedings and gives the Inland Revenue an unfair method of obtaining a priority creditor's rating. The vast majority of bankruptcies these days are caused by the banks or the Inland Revenue. A small creditor will seldom force a small business into bankruptcy, because he is always looking for his return. Under the Clause such creditors will be at an even greater disadvantage. The normal creditors will be there—the Inland Revenue and the landlord, who will be a preferential creditor. But, in addition, the Inland Revenue will come in under another guise, as the Customs and Excise. In the past small businesses went into bankruptcy owing money to the wholesaler, who was not a preferential creditor. Now the Customs and Excise will step in as a preferential creditor and will act in the same way as the wholesaler did in the past. The difficulty is that the priority creditor may be owed about £100, and if there is only £90 left when the bankrupt's affairs are tied up, it will go to the Customs and Excise, who will become a priority Creditor. The Customs and Excise should take the same chance as every other creditor.
To sum up, therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will examine the questions I have raised about family planning, osteopaths, the penal provisions of Clause 38 and the provisions of Clause 41. I see no reason why VAT should afford a priority credit rating to the Customs and Excise. The Bill contains many things with which I am proud to be associated. We on the Government Benches are perfectly willing to meet the public on the Bill and I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the work he has put into it.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: This is an interesting Bill, and as a Co-operative Member I welcome the provision to abolish SET. I also welcome the concession designed to avoid as far as possible double taxation on television sets which are sent out for hire. Those are two important concessions which were made during the passage of the Bill. We pressed the Government on them strenuously during the Committee stage. The trading associations concerned were extremely worried lest their profitability and cash flow were affected by the Bill.
The position of small close companies is still outstanding. I am still not clear about it. I know that the Chancellor wanted to help this type of business. It is a particularly important one for Scotland. We want to ensure that the penalties of the increased rate of corporation tax are much more fairly distributed to make certain that the cash flows of these companies are not inhibited when ploughing back their profits to secure capital development.
The outstanding feature of the Bill is VAT. The Conservatives made it plain before they came into office that they wanted to introduce the tax whether we went into the EEC or not. I have made it plain in many speeches here and in my constituency that, while I am a convinced European, I have always had grave misgivings about the efficacy of this form of taxation. I give the Chancellor credit for devising a clever form of taxation. It is useful to impose one effective rate, and it is useful also, in terms of reducing the regressive nature of the tax, to zero-rate foodstuffs. But even at this late stage we must seek a clearer indication from the Government than they have given so far that they will strenuously resist any temptation and resist any pressure from external sources to bring foodstuffs within the scope of the tax. We have certain specific misgivings. While we accept the general structure of the tax, we would be worried if the Government sought at some early date to impose the tax on food.
My fourth point relates to corporation tax in Part IV and to capital allowances. We have discussed once whether the EEC Commission has examined the provisions for capital allowances and the provisions in the Industry Bill. In the Committee stage of the Industry Bill last Thursday night we were given an assurance by the Minister for Industry in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) that the Bill met the general requirements of the EEC Commission. But if the 20 per cent. or 22 per cent. capital grants available under the Industry Bill are combined with the system of free depreciation in the Finance Bill, the total will exceed the 20 per cent. capital grant which the Commission allows in the congested areas. I do not want to be a scaremonger and I do not want to inhibit industrialists from


investing, particularly in areas like Scotland, but we should be told clearly that the two provisions have been agreed to by the Commission.
I do not take the view that because I am a Scot I should have nothing to say about capital allowances in Northern Ireland, which is another part of our economic union. It is perfectly legitimate for a member of an economic union to examine what is going on in another member country. We must be clear that industrialists in this country can push ahead with the necessary investment on the basis of the provisions in the two Bills, soaking up a large measure of unemployment in areas like Scotland. We want to know that investment will take place at the pace we desire.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his very kind remarks about me and my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, and I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) for the very kind words he said about us.
I was taken aback, as I am sure some other hon. Members would have been, by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the representations he told us he was still receiving. Seriously, the House owes him a debt for his assiduity.
Although we gave the Bill tremendous scrutiny, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) that there is something considerably lacking in our methods, and that we need to look again at the way in which we deal with our Bills.
It has been a long haul. The July scene is somewhat different from the March scene, when the Chancellor presented his Budget. The Budget forecasts on which the Bill is based said nothing about the flotation we had a little later. But that flotation stems from the Government's failure to deal with the basic problem of our day, the problem of inflation. Any other successes the Chancellor may claim—and it is difficult to find them—are insignificant by comparison with the failure to deal with inflation.
If the economic scene is different, the Bill, too, is very different. It is not simply that it is now clearly irrelevant; in my view, it is positively dangerous. In content and philosophy, it is wholly out of tune with the needs of the moment. Its danger lies in the failure to comprehend the harm the Chancellor has done in the Bill to those in the TUC and the CBI who are genuinely seeking to help to deal with the problems of inflation.
If I may allow myself the luxury of a brief philosophical look at the Bill as a whole, I should like to consider what it does to help to solve the major problem of inflation. We shall have to learn to live with some inflation, butthe consequences of massive inflation could be very serious. I do not think that it is overstating the case to say that there would be from such a massive inflation such an erosion of living standards as could create in this country a situation which many of us might never envisage, despite our renowned stability. Therefore, it is the most serious situation that faces us. It is against this background that we must look at the major elements in the Bill and whether it helps or hinders the fight against inflation.
It will be no secret to hon. Members that I think VAT is a horrible tax. I am sorry that I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). Apparently at least one Conservative Member is also not very keen on the tax. When we started on the tax we were told that its major merits were that it was broad based, comprehensive, and free from anomalies. We all know that it never was comprehensive and broad based, when 45 per cent. of consumption was untaxed. After our debates in Committee, I doubt whether anyone now believes that there are no anomalies. All the anomalies could be remedied at a stroke by making the tax truly comprehensive and including food, fuel and all the other items that have been zero-rated. The Chancellor has insisted on the power to do so, because he has retained the ability to include those items in VAT by order after a 1½-hour debate at the end of a parliamentary day.
Last week when we discussed the question of food, the Chancellor was, to put it mildly, somewhat devious. He gave us an assurance not that he would never tax food or even that it was not his


intention to tax food but that it was not his intention to use the order to tax food. That was unworthy of him. It is within his power to say here and now that he at least would never tax food. That pledge he can give. That is the pledge we have asked for, and I understand that his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, also asked him to give it. We ask for an unequivocal pledge that he will never tax food, but I see that he remains silent and does not intend to give us that sort of pledge.
If such words have any meaning—and those on the Treasury Bench have used such words often enough—the Government intend to make the tax comprehensive. Otherwise, they would never have introduced a tax as complicated administratively as VAT just to collect the same amount of revenue as the two taxes it replaces. I would welcome a denial, but I fear that their intention is to make the tax the truly comprehensive tax they have always claimed it to be.
I doubt whether anyone, even the Financial Secretary, still believes that it is a good tax. Possibly the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. William Clark) believes that it is, but he had better be careful, because while he is still claiming that it is a good tax, the Government might be dropping it, as happened to him on an Amendment. I doubt whether anyone can believe, whatever else he believes about the tax that it will reduce the pressure on prices, which is what is needed today.
The reasons are obvious. They derive from the well-known maxim that if a tax is imposed, prices increase, but when it is taken off there are many excuses for not reducing the prices. With a new tax, no chances will be taken. When they sell goods, retailers will now base their profit on the cost including the VAT input. At present most retailers base their profit margin on goods including the purchase tax, treating the whole lot as the total cost. I had always thought that with VAT they would treat the net price as the price on which to charge VAT, because they are getting a credit for the input. But after talking to quite a number of people involved, I believe that retailers will charge VAT on the inclusive price and then pocket the input which

they are allowed. The result is bound to be that inflation will be both cumulative and substantial.
The situation will not be helped by the way the Chancellor has chosen to deal with stocks. Retailers—I am not talking only about small retailers—will be faced with a number of choices on how to deal with the transitional problem of stocks. They will almost certainly reduce the orders between now and next April. This was proved to me recently by a statement in the Financial Times of 5th July by the chairman of S and K Holdings Limited. The report said that:
During the coming months buying limits of each group member would be restricted to avoid any real danger of double taxation on shelf stocks on the introduction of VAT.
That will happen throughout the country, with serious transitional problems, at a time which will be absolutely wrong for the economy. If inflation is the most serious danger facing us today, the one dramatic way in which the Government could show that they mean business would be to postpone the start of VAT, because there is nothing in the Treaty of Accession which demands that the Government should introduce it now.
Turning to the remainder of the Bill's major items, unified tax, loan interest and share options, there is a Tory case that can be made for each of them. I do not agree with it, but the case can be made. However, no case can be made for doing these things at this moment. What is urgently needed is the co-operation of workers. At such a time we have the Foreign Secretary telling the workers that they should curb their greed. He should have spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer first. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East gave some examples of what the Chancellor is doing with judges and other top salary earners. I will give one other example, not relating to earned income but to something about which the Chief Secretary never likes to hear—unearned income.
A married man with no children with a £20,000 a year investment income—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) would listen to the argument it would help. He is right if he says that there are few such people, but if he thinks that that in itself is an adequate reason for giving them


large handouts, he is wrong. This man, before the Chancellor's changes in the Budget, had a net income of £5,590. In 1973–74 his net income will be £7,242 an increase of £1,652—more than the average industrial earnings in the country, an increase of nearly 30 per cent. It is not 30 per cent, with deductions, but 30 per cent. net. That is investment income.
This is done by the Chancellor in the way in which he has largely misused his unified tax system for, in addition to what he has done with the tax system, this man—not the railwaymen—will have further opportunities through the other measures of the Chancellor, by way of loan interest and unit trusts, share options, capital gains and the rest. As for share options, there may be an odd young man who will work hard as a result of them, but I doubt whether in the main, this will be the case, for there is no incentive. This is simply a method of giving a back-door increase in real income to these people.
I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) that the reversal of these measures would not mean that there would be massive economic consequences. But I believe that it is incredible folly to introduce them at the same time as workers are accused of greed for seeking to maintain a standard of living in the face of rising inflation. Would it not have been more sensible to use the £300 million of tax relief from the unified tax to keep down fare increases, fuel or food increases, or to bring forward the payment date of the higher old-age pension, so helping those in greatest need?
Those priorities are not the Chancellor's. He gets his whole philosophical approach wrong. If he is right, and I believe he is, in constantly telling us that our well-being as a nation depends on our not taking out more than we produce, then he must be desperately wrong in using this Bill to allow a few who are already very rich to take out more than they could ever produce. I am pleased to note that this is also a view shared by the hon. Member for Norwich, South, if by no other hon. Member opposite. If as a nation we are to succeed in the battle against inflation, any Gov-

ernment needs the goodwill and co-operation of every worker and, what is more, of his wife. This Bill destroys any chance of getting that co-operation and I have therefore no hesitation in asking my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against it.

7.44 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): In a few minutes—because I do not intend to speak for long—the House will decide whether to give this Bill a Third Reading. In considering the magnitude of the reforms which the Bill embodies, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) was right when he said that we could take some pride in the manner in which the proceedings on the Bill have been handled.
We used to hear a lot—we heard an echo of it tonight from the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham)—about how ill-equipped Parliament is to deal with complex technical, fiscal, legislation. For many years there have been complaints, too, that industry, commerce and the professions have played too small a part in the processes of tax reform. I believe that, quite apart from the substance of the reforms—and I shall come to them in a moment—the manner of their introduction represents a major advance on anything that went before.
The Green Papers, the thorough consultations with the Revenue departments, the Select Committee's study of corporation tax, the draft VAT legislation published at the time of the Budget—all of these have fully proved their worth. Not only have they enabled Revenue departments and Treasury Ministers to consult far more widely than hitherto, and not only is the process of the introduction of reforms being spread over several years, but the new procedures have without any doubt led to better-informed debates in the House and in Committee. All of this must be to the advantage of the economy as a whole. I do not believe that any Government will ever go back to reforming the tax system in the old way.
Spreading the introduction of new taxes over two or more years has other advantages. In some matters it is not possible to decide on the details until


the House has settled the broad principles and further consultations can take place. Corporation tax is a case in point. In Committee I said that we would be prepared to consult further on several important aspects including the treatment of groups of companies and some transitional relief for unquoted companies. During the Budget debate I gave an undertaking to consult interested parties to see whether a scheme of relief could be framed for unincorporated associations and other bodies with objects of a public nature.
Further, the fact that corporation tax reform does not come into effect until next April gives us time to revise our network of double taxation agreements, particularly in relation to dividends going abroad. As the House will recognise, the existing arrangements are not apt to cover the imputation system. In the next year or so the Inland Revenue will be renegotiating as rapidly as it can the material parts of our existing agreements. We have already had preliminary discussions with some of our overseas partners, and I am confident that we shall negotiate satisfactory arrangements. We have, therefore, deliberately reserved until next year the question whether we need additional provisions, at least in respect of trade dividends paid abroad, to strengthen our negotiating position. I hope that we shall not but if, regrettably, we find that we do, we shall ask Parliament for the necessary additional powers in next year's Finance Bill.
I turn to another aspect of company taxation, to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), about what has come to be known as the "German inquiry" about our capital allowances and our investment incentives. I can give him two clear assurances on this. The only inquiry which the Germans have made is whether the free depreciation and the regional incentives in the Industry Bill are consistent with Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome. The Commission has assured the Germans that they are.
The second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, taking the free depreciation in this Bill on its own was: does it conflict with anything else in the Rome Treaty? Here I can tell the House that

the whole package was disclosed to the Commission immediately after my right hon. Friend made his Budget statement. The Commission has had it for four months and there has been no hint or suggestion that anything in the proposals is not fully compatible with the Community rules. I can assure the House, too, that this was gone into most carefully by the Government before the Budget. As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, we are satisfied that there is no incompatibility with the Community provisions.
As we might have expected, the bulk of the debate has centred around VAT.I will not restate the reasons why we have decided to introduce VAT. They were well stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek. What has become apparent is that the right hon. Member for Leeds. East still does not understand the tax. He had a great deal of fun with what he described as the anomalies, but he got many of them quite wrong. Yes, he is right, butter wrappers are taxed but in the hands of the retailer or wholesaler the tax is input tax. When the butter is sold to the public the whole packet is zero-rated and no tax is paid on the wrapper. In the case of the short stay-long stay boundary in hotels the right hon. Gentleman suggested that if one stayed over 27 days one's stay would be tax free. This just simply is not so. It is the home element, if I may so describe it, in the Bill which is tax free. The services remain taxed.

Mr. Healey: That is why I chose my words with such care. I referred to providing the room. I referred to the services element as taxed.

Mr. Jenkin: I listened most carefully to the right hon. Gentleman when he said that, and my hon. Friends had the same impression as I.
The right hon. Gentleman said there would be an increase in staff numbers of 8,000. It is not 8,000. It is 6,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) made the same point. Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat what I said on Second Reading. I said that by the time our tax reforms are completed, with the tax credit scheme, we hope to be able to save many thousands of civil servants, and there will


be a cut in staffing on the tax machinery running into five figures.
The right hon. Gentleman compared the two rates of purchase tax in 1969–70 as having raised £587 million. The Annual Report of Customs and Excise shows that it was £687 million.

Mr. Healey: I did not say that.

Mr. Jenkin: Then I stand corrected.

Mr. Healey: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not listen very carefully to what I said—or possibly his advisers did not. What I said was that they raised £587 million more than the same volume of these goods would raise under VAT.

Mr. Jenkin: That is a nice and different point.
The fact is that one-third of the yield of the top two rates of purchase tax referred to cars, and after next year cars will be taxed with VAT plus car tax at much the same rate as they are taxed at present.
I think I have said enough in general on the right hon. Gentleman's points, but there are three detailed points which I must answer.
One of them was made by the right hon. Gentleman and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, in which they reiterated their belief that this tax was going to be regressive. This simply is not so. Of course, it is good clean fun to pick out the particular items which have not hitherto been taxed or which will now be taxed at a higher rate, but surely to goodness the House must realise that we have to look at the totality of the change, and here I must emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget Statement:
There is, therefore, no reason to fear that the change-over to VAT will be regressive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1378.]
He had very good reasons to say so. Of course, most food, fuel, housing, fares, which enter substantially into the budgets of the poor, will be zero-rated, and some of these bore SET; and many ordinary household items—electric light bulbs,

toilet soap, television sets, space heaters—will be taxed at much lower rates. Services, which come much more into the budget of the well-to-do, will be taxed in a way in which many of them have not been taxed before.
Ours will, in fact, be the fairest VAT in Europe—[Hon. Members: "Ah."]—a fact which hon. Members opposite have been very slow and reluctant to admit.

Dr. Stuttaford: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to my hon. Friend in a moment. He raised the question of churches. It is a serious point and I must answer it. I can only believe that my hon. Friend was not in the House when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to this on 12th July, and perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend of what my right hon. Friend said:
I assure the House that the Government are willing to consider any approach made by the church authorities about the possibility of grants towards the cost of repairs to historic churches, and naturally any question of grant for historic churches in use would not be confined to those of the Church of England.
Later my right hon. Friend said:
I invite any charity which feels that it can demonstrate a significant deterioration in its position as a result of the changes in this Bill to send details to the Customs and Excise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July. 1972; Vol. 840, c. 1690–4.]
He went on to say that it would be looked at most sympathetically.

Dr. Stuttaford: Would my hon. Friend agree that on the actual night that Amendment was being discussed we were told that there would be some announcement the following day about a grant? The question of a discussion in the future is not at all the way in which it was put.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) also raised this point, and he expressed himself satisfied with what the Chancellor said in that debate. I think it best to leave it so. There was no question of any misunderstanding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leek raised the question of colleges of further education. I can assure him that it is


the Government's intention to exempt the provision of education by such bodies in so far as they are providing education such as provided by a school or university and otherwise than for profit. If the drafting of the Bill requires change in the light of further discussion I can assure my hon. Friend that the necessary adjustment will be made by a Treasury order before 1st April next.
Before I sit down I must deal with the last part of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East. I seem to recollect that on his first appearance as Opposition spokesman on finance I remarked on the dearth of economic quotations from him: I could find no single utterance of his on the record on economic matters. He has, if I may say so, broken his duck with a vengeance. I am willing to bet that some of his remarks during the proceedings on this Bill are remarks which he would prefer to forget.
However, I simply cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with the main burden of his criticism today. The fact of the matter is that over and over again we have seen since the last General Election the Labour Party contradict what it did and said in Government. We were roundly criticised last year for increasing the earned income relief right up the scale, but it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) who said in 1969:
…I have carefully considered whether, even in a year as difficult as this, it would be justifiable for incentive reasons, and for the encouragement of sayings, to mitigate slightly the rates of tax on high earned incomes.
He went on:
I would emphasise, however, that I regard an increase in one of the earned income allowances as a high priority for a later Budget."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1031–2.]
The truth of the matter is that he wanted to do it; he failed to do it, but it has not stopped the Labour Party from attacking us when we do it.
Take the reintroduction of stock options, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) referred. Many in the Labour Party were critical of what that

party did in 1966, and they know it. Last year the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) said:
To be frank, I was not entirely happy about the course which the law had taken in the past."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 21st June, 1971; c. 939.]
While I would not for one moment claim that the hon. and learned Member would assent to every Clause and every paragraph on that subject in this Bill, it makes the violent criticisms we have had from the Labour Party wholly inconsistent with the sensible and moderate reaction of the hon. and learned Member last year.
Take the unified tax system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stechford said he wanted to do this but found himself unable to achieve it; it would always be an essential feature of a unified tax system that it should be structured round earned income rather than investment income, which means some starting point for the investment income surcharge. Yet how could the Labour Party hope to administer a unified tax system with a significantly lower starting point in investment income than the one we have chosen? Or would it, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton suggested, have two tax systems side by side, earned income tax and investment income tax? We are not told.
So it goes on—on one Tory tax reform after another, we have achieved what the Labour Party wanted to do, and yet because we do it, not that party, it stands on its head in bitter complaint. The simple fact is that the Labour Party is quite unable to attack the major changes in this Bill—the biggest-ever increases in personal allowances, the substantial cuts in indirect taxation, the real help for widows and charities on estate duty, the new 100 per cent. first-year allowances for plant and machinery, and, above all—I say this again to a party which itself has committed to enter into the European Community—the Bill contains the fairest VAT in Europe with its single, low, positive rate—[Hon. Members: "For how long?"]—coupled with the zero-rating of most food, housing, fuel and fares. These are the heart of the Bill, and I invite the House to support it in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 253.

Division No. 302.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fidler, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Astor, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Awdry, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Marcus
Luce, R. N.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Batsford, Brian
Fry, Peter
MacArthur, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McCrindle, R. A.


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
McLaren, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maddan, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B
Madel, David


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gorst, John
Marten, Neil


Body, Richard
Gower, Raymond
Mather, Carol


Boscawen, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.)
Maude, Angus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Bowden, Andrew
Green, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brewis, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J
Miscampbell, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernle


Bryan, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Havers, Michael
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Neave, Airey


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Terence L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Normanton, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Miss Mary
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Coombs, Derek
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cooper, A. E.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cordle, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Crowder, F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton


Dalkeith, Earl of
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dean, Paul
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dixon, Piers
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Redmond, Robert


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton. E.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N)
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Lord
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Farr, John
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fell, Anthony

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)




Rost, Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Royle, Anthony
Stokes, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walters, Dennis


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Ward, Dame Irene


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sharples, Sir Richard
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Simeons, Charles
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Smith, Dudley (W'wick S L'mington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Soref, Harold
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Woodnutt, Mark


Speed, Keith
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Spence, John
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sproat, Iain
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Stainton, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Steel, David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Waddington, David



NOES


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Albu, Austen
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Allen, Scholefield
Driberg, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Russell


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kinnock, Neil


Barnes, Michael
Ellis, Tom
Lambie, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Evans, Fred
Lamond, James


Baxter, William
Ewing, Henry
Lawson, George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leonard, Dick


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Garrett, W. E.
Lipton, Marcus


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lomas, Kenneth


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
McBride, Neil


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McElhone, Frank


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McGuire, Michael


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hamling, William
Mackintosh, John P.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Maclennan, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marks, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Roy
Marquand, David


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marsden, F.


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Conlan, Bernard
Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward


Davidson, Arthur
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Mitchell. R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Janner, Greville
Molloy, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
Moyle, Roland


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Murray, Ronald King


Doig, peter

Oakes, Gordon







O'Halloran, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tinn, James


O'Malley, Brian
Roper, John
Tomney, Frank


Oram, Bert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


Orbach, Maurice
Rowlands, Ted
Tuck, Raphael


Oswald, Thomas
Sandelson, Neville
Urwin, T. W.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Padley, Walter
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Paget, R. T.
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wallace, George


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sillars, James
Weitzman, David


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silverman, Julius
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prescott, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Probert, Arthur
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Richard, Ivor
Taverne, Dick



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. James Wellbeloved and


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee,B.)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 176

PUBLIC HEALTH

8.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move Amendment No. 1069, in page 112, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
This is a small Amendment. Subsection (5) is now unnnecessary because of an Amendment which was made in Committee in regard to joint boards. As a result, the terms "water functions" and "sewerage functions"are no longer used in the Clause and the definition can be deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 14

AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS, ETC.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1075, in page 255, line 20, leave out paragraph 3 and insert: —
'3. Proviso (a) to section 7(1) shall cease to have effect'.
A subsequent Amendment in relation to repeals, relating to Schedule 30, Amendment No. 1084, will remove reference to Section 3(2) of the Public Health Act, 1936. The new paragraph 3 repeals a provision in the 1936 Act which enables Ministers to authorise local authorities to exercise functions concurrently with joint boards. Consequently this drafting Amendment is needed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 493, in page 255, line 27, leave out from 'a' to 'and' in line 33 and insert:
'metropolitan county by the county council, in Greater London by the Greater London Council, and in a non-metropolitan county by the district council'.
I hope that it will be convenient to deal also with the other Amendments in this group, namely:

No. 879, in page 255, line 27, leave out from 'a' to 'and' in line 33 and insert:
'metropolitan county by the county council or district council, in Greater London by the Greater London Council, and in a non-metropolitan county by the district council'.

No. 494, in page 255, line 39, leave out 'or'.

No. 495, in page 255, line 40, after 'council', insert 'or the district council'.

No. 496, in page 255, line 41, leave out 'or'.

No. 497, in page 255, line 42, after 'Council', insert 'or the district council'.

No. 498, in page 255, line 45, leave out second 'and'.

No. 499, in page 256, line 1, after second 'Council', insert 'or the district council'.

No. 500, in page 256, line 1, leave out 'or'.

No. 501, in page 256, line 1, after second 'Council', insert 'or the district council'.

No. 502, in page 256, line 5, after 'authority', insert:
'other than a district council in a non-metropolitan county'.

No. 503, in page 256, line 16, after 'authority', insert:
'other than a district council in a non-metropolitan county'.

No. 504, in page 256, line 25, after 'authority', insert:
'other than a district council in a non-metropolitan county'.

No. 505, in page 256, line 31, after 'authority', insert:
'other than a district council in a non-metropolitan county'.

No. 506, in page 261, line 39, after 'England', insert 'in a metropolitan county'.

No. 507, in page 261, line 40, after 'county', insert:
'in a non-metropolitan county the council of a district'.

No. 508, in page 261, line 40, after first 'and', insert 'in Greater London'.

The purpose of this group of Amendments is to enable the new district councils in England, other than those in metropolitan areas, to exercise functions of refuse disposal in conjunction with the powers which it is proposed to grant to them in respect of refuse collection.

The Government intend that in non-county districts the functions shall be divided. The new district councils are to be responsible for refuse collection, but not for its disposal. There appears to be a dichotomy in these arrangements. The places to which refuse will be taken will lie in most cases in the area of the district council which is collecting it. It therefore appears to be misguided to take this function out of the hands of the district councils which have the responsibility for this work at present.

I have examined carefully the statements made upstairs in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development, and he appeared to stress the fact that we are moving to a state of affairs in which there is a greater sophistication and elaboration in techniques of refuse disposal. However, I am not sure that this advance is likely to be put into practice generally for many years.

Most authorities dump refuse and this in most cases is bound to be a satisfactory and cheap method. I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not agree with that statement, but I think he will agree that it is the most widespread method of refuse disposal, and is one way of restoring and reclaiming land which has been subject to mineral abstraction. The method if properly handled is satisfactory. It can be badly handled, and perhaps that is why my right hon. Friend appears to disagree with me on this point.

To talk in terms of using incinerator techniques in rural parts of the country is to ignore current practices of sewage disposal in those areas which I believe will continue for a long time. There may be a different approach to refuse disposal in built-up urban areas where one has high densities. However, there are not always adequate dumping grounds for refuse and we need to search for better and improved methods of disposal.

Many of the proposed district councils have already gone in for improved disposal techniques. Details have been given in the report of the Working Party on Refuse Disposal, published in 1971. A number of authorities were said to have instituted incineration and pulverisation methods of refuse disposal. A more

up-to-date example is the construction of an incinerator in the Blaby rural district to deal with refuse from a number of authorities in the area, including part of the Leicester County Borough. Even in a situation where proved disposal methods are used, it is not right to assume that the responsibilities are placed in the hands of county authorities.

The size of district councils will make it economic to run these improved techniques of disposal and the enlarged new districts will be capable of operating the new methods efficiently and satisfactorily in addition to the controlled tips which my right hon. Friend criticises but which I am confident will be operating for many years to come. At the same time I agree that we muse insist upon high standards of management.

I ask the Government to have further thoughts on this and to recognise the practical difficulties which I believe will ensue from these proposals. In many cases we shall find that the disposal units and the refuse collection areas will lie within the districts which are collecting the refuse, and yet they will be operated by the county councils. I cannot think that this is a satisfactory method of integrating these two services. I am convinced that if it is left to the districts they will get together where joint schemes are advisable and necessary and that this whole problem of disposal can be dealt with on the basis of district councils operating with one another rather than on the broad concept of the county council having these powers.

Mr. John Farr: I wish to oppose the Amendments dealing with refuse disposal. The large incinerator at Blaby to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) referred lies in my constituency. I have been to see it. It is a very expensive project which, even with the new enlarged district councils, I should have thought was well beyond the capacity of one district council to provide.
My hon. Friend will remember that in its 1971 Report the Departmental Working Party on Refuse Disposal recommended that the disposal of refuse should remain in the hands of the local county authorities. I share that view. Everyone today is greatly concerned with environmental problems, and I believe


that the only way that refuse can be acceptably disposed of in the years ahead is by means of incineration or some scientific method of disposal carried out on a large scale by a county authority with the resources necessary for the task
My hon. Friend said that he thought that this matter should be in the hands of district councils. In some parts of the country I agree that it may be rather stupid to contemplate incineration on a large scale or other scientific methods of disposal. In those circumstances I urge and possibly the county councils could use the powers which they are authorised toutilise in the Bill, namely, to delegate this function to the district councils where it is thought appropriate.

Mr. George Wallace: I support the Amendment which provides that the larger district councils should retain the right to dispose of refuse. It seems logical to me that a large local authority with an efficient system of collection and disposal should remain undisturbed.
About 24 years ago, I introduced a Motion on the subject of controlled tipping. There is a considerable amount of waste land which could be recovered by this means and bear useful crops of grass within two or three years. There is a controlled tip by the Harford Cattle Market at Norwich. Many progressive local authorities have adopted controlled tipping methods and are reclaiming considerable areas of land. This is of environmental value just as much as incineration in some areas. Therefore I believe that the large district councils which have efficient systems of collection and disposal should be allowed to carry on. After all, some county councils have not a clue about proper methods of refuse disposal.

Mr. David Stoddart: I support the Amendment. It is quite absurd to separate the functions of collecting and disposing of refuse. There may be a conflict of policy between the two authorities. Bearing in mind the size of the new district councils, I believe that it is right for them both to collect and to dispose of refuse. Most of the refuse will come from the urban areas. Therefore in general, since the urban areas will be controlled by the district councils, it

is right for the district councils to be responsible for refuse disposal.
This is an important matter. On many occasions jokes are made about it. But it is a serious problem, and it becomes more serious every year. It is important that the local authorities which have most experience in and know-how about refuse disposal should continue to have this function.
We have heard about controlled tipping and about incineration. We have not heard much about reclamation. With our resources being used up to a fantastic degree and with refuse disposal becoming more and more difficult because of the materials being used, reclamation and recycling will be a much more important function in the future than it has been in the past.
I say again that the people who will be responsible for running the district councils will have had a great deal more experience than those who will be running the county councils of both refuse collection and disposal. Rather than upset what has been a very good and efficient service until now, I hope that the House will see reason and accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I support the Amendment. I am intensely interested in the environment. I believe that the district councils have a close interest in this problem since the tips or other means of disposal will be in their areas. In Lancaster controlled tipping has provided some useful reclaimed land which is suitable for housing and factory sites.
Another point for consideration is that the more work that can be given to the district councils, the more lively the members they will attract and the more efficient the officers who will want to go to them.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I support the Amendment. In doing so, I am inevitably pressing the point of view of my constituency experience, but I am in the happy position of knowing I have the support of my Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) made a sound environmental point, but the Amendment can also be justified on grounds of efficiency. Certainly that is true of my area.
In March this year Blackburn concluded the building of an up-to-date modern incinerator, at a most of over £750,000, which is capable of servicing the whole of the new district within which the county borough will be comprised. This has been part of its municipal pride and activity. Yet this proud county borough will find that even its incinerator is to be taken away under the provisions in the Bill. We shall have the ludicrous situation of a duplication of functions with Blackburn, a former county borough capable of running all aspects of its affairs, being told that it is good enough to pick up the refuse but not to dispose of it.
8.30 p.m.
I am delighted that there is support from both sides of the House on this matter. If the Government reject the Amendment they will destroy the last vestiges of pride and hope in the district councils they are creating.
In reply, the Under-Secretary may say, "But Blackburn is an exception. It happens to be a former county borough." As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are four county boroughs in the area which is to be turned into a county council with the former county borough reduced to district council status. If he says that Blackburn is exceptional and should not be taken as an example for other areas, he is proving the case we put to him on Monday that this exceptional area ought to be recognised as such and given metropolitan area status. However, the hon. Gentleman turned us down on that.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Quite right.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Lady says "Quite right." Though she and I may disagree on that point, we agree that if the Government are to destroy a self-reliant, totally comprehensive local authority and to give it district council status, they must give it something to be a council for. Otherwise, why bother? Why not just create a unitary authority at county council level? What is left to an area which has a long municipal tradition of self-reliance which, if they are not careful, the Government are about to destroy?
The Amendment is modest. It does not strike at the roots of the Government's philosophy on local government reorganisation. The Government are

dividing what was a unified function of refuse collection and disposal and carving it up, handing the demeaning end of the enterprise to the district councils. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the arguments that have been put forward from both sides of the House and to give something back to the district councils before it is too late.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I support the Amendment for a particular reason. I represent a constituency which will be a second-tier district, if the Boundary Commission follows its plans through, which many other authorities will think ideal for the dumping of rubbish. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) has told me that when he complained about the Warwickshire County Council tipping refuse in Rugby, the county council apparently said, "We shall have to look to Nuneaton again."
I am not keen that Nuneaton should be used as a rubbish dump for Warwickshire. Many people think that an area which has many quarries and quite a few old holes from which stones, coal, and other materials have been extracted, is an ideal dumping ground not only for cyanide, which is the subject of a later Amendment, but for other materials.
I support the Amendment because we should have unification of the collection, the disposal and, above all, the reclamation of land. We cannot separate these three functions.
Other local authorities and the National Coal Board have used my constituency for the dumping of refuse material. There have been some protests in my constituency about the dumping of loads of material by other authorities and boards in connection with reclamation schemes. A constituency and a second-tier district like my own has great need to be concerned about the kind of disposal which has taken place in the past, and the kind of tipping over which it does not have sufficiently adequate powers. I am thinking of the kind of thing which we have at Bedworth and other parts of my constituency. It is my contention that the urban district council, which is soon to become part of the second-tier district, does not have sufficient powers to control this kind of tipping.
The Under-Secretary of State knows, because he represents the constituency next door to mine, that the people in the north of Warwickshire are a different bunch from the squirearchy in the south of Warwickshire. When one tells the local squirearchy in the south of Warwickshire that there are coal mines in the north of Warwickshire, they think that the coal mines and mining areas are ideal for the dumping of their rubbish. However, the Under-Secretary of State knows very well, as he often sails through my constituency, or floats through, or whatever he does nowadays, that the second-tier district councillors on the new Nuneaton, Bedworth and Atherstone District Council, or whatever it will be, have a far better detailed knowledge of the local conditions in the north of Warwickshire than the county council. That is why the town clerk of Nuneaton, Mr. Eccles, and the clerk of the Bedworth Urban District Council, Mr. Walters, have sent me telegrams this week urging me to support Amendments on refuse disposal.
Surprisingly, one even gets complaints about the seagulls which emerge from the tips which Coventry Corporation has in my constituency. I have had some complaints from the National Farmers' Union about the behaviour of the seagulls which come from Coventry Corporation's tip in my constituency. I hope that the district council will have the power to control the seagulls that visit the tips.
The councillors who represent an area at the grass roots level where all the rubbish has to be tipped or may be tipped, or may have been tipped in the past, have a far better knowledge of the conditions, and should have the kind of controls which are desirable. I find it difficult to support the idea, especially when the Under-Secretary of State has knowledge of North Warwickshire, that the Nuneaton district council will be fit only to pick up the dustbins and not to empty them. That is why it is with a great deal of pleasure, particularly thinking of the seagulls in north Warwickshire, that I support the Amendment.

Mr. A. P. Costain: We should like to send the seagulls from Folkstone to Coventry, but it is too far away. I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State says in opposing the Amendment, because it seems to make

common sense. When we had 1,500 local authorities, there was a big argument about the disposal of refuse. In my constituency, after several years of negotiations, the two boroughs and one urban district council decided to build their own incinerator. Unfortunately, that has not yet gone ahead because of the Bill.
One of the most difficult problems in dealing with house and industrial refuse is the collection and the next most difficult is the disposal. We should not fool ourselves that under the new arrangement there will not be a good deal of feeling between the new district councils and the county councils. I believe that in life the great thing is to have an organisation in which Charlie cannot blame Bill. The danger is that a local authority may find good reason for not collecting refuse because the county council cannot dispose of it.
If we are to give the district councils the status that we want them to have we should lean over backwards to see what responsibilities we can give them. The more responsibilities we can give them, the better the councillors and the better staff they will get. This is a simple problem. The job of collection must be given to the district councils because of the detail involved, so surely it is logical to take the process further and let those who collect the refuse also dispose of it.
Equally, we must appreciate the possible parish pump politics which will be involved when it comes to finding refuse dumps and disposal points, or even sites for incinerators. If this is left to the county councils, there will be a great deal more opposition from each of the local authorities, each trying to make sure that everyone else's rubbish is not disposed of in its area. On the other hand, if disposal is also the responsibility of the district councils, they will have to find a place for disposal—and rubbish can be disposed of by new and modern tipping to advantage. The more we can have straight-line management and a straight line of responsibility, the better it is.

Dame Joan Vickers: It is pathetic that great county boroughs such as Blackburn and Plymouth have to come here and plead to be allowed to dispose of their refuse. I


support the Amendment because it would give the district councils another point of action and would mean also that the people on the spot would be supervising the disposal, which is a very important aspect.
In Plymouth we have a lot of infilling. We used to have patients taken up to the Royal Naval Hospital by boat, but this is not necessary now and we are making great use of the waterway by infilling. We shall have excellent playing fields there instead. Infilling is also being done in the Royal Navy's inlets in the dock area. This, too, provides extra playing fields for the Royal Navy and more car parking facilities. We want to continue this important work and it would be unfortunate if it were stopped.
Again, supposing the district council, having collected the refuse, finds that there is a strike at the disposal dump? What does it do with the rubbish? This is not an exaggerated question. We should know what would happen in some circumstances. For all these considerations and because I think it important to leave the local districts some work to do, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Ted Lead bitter: The Minister must on this occasion answer as a spokesman of the Government and not of the Department and explain to us why non-metropolitan districts in England are treated differently from non-metropolitan districts in Wales. This is a serious anomaly. There are to be no metropolitan counties in Wales. Under these proposals, every county in the Principality is to be a non-metropolitan county, yet they will have the functions which the metropolitan districts in England will have. If the Minister does not face this question, he will be treating it with contempt and, with his record on the Bill, I am sure that he would not like to have that charge laid against him. He should explain why a non-metropolitan district in England cannot have the kind of function which is being allowed to non-metropolitan districts in Wales.
8.45 p.m.
The question of local government functions took up a great deal of time in Committee. We are here dealing with the reputations of local authorities. Many

urban areas in the new districts have many years of solid achievements behind them in discharging their functions. They therefore feel a serious sense of loss in not being called upon to perform functions in which their efficiency has never been questioned. I am reminded of the seriousness of this matter when I look at the Amendments which have been chosen for discussion. I regret that no Amendment dealing with weights and measures and food and drugs has been selected. There is no division between Conservative and Labour Members about the need to review the Government's proposals in order to give back to local authorities functions which they have carried out efficiently and in which they have a long and proud record.
If the Government accept that a non-metropolitan district should be responsible for the collection of refuse, why cannot they agree that the same authority should be responsible for its disposal? Cannot they see that there is a need for a co-ordinated, overall plan with the county made on a voluntary basis to deal with this matter? Apart from the need to deal efficiently with refuse, a serious environmental problem arises which would be met if the Minister had second thoughts about his intentions.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said:
…if, in the view of the county council, the district council is not able to discharge this function, the county council can step in and deal with it So there is a vital reserve function in the Amendment. Incidentally, I do not think that either the Minister or my hon. Friend read the Amendment properly…".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22nd February, 1972; c. 1807.]
Our Amendment in Committee was similar to the Amendment we are now considering, but it had a very sensible proviso whereby a county council would have a reserve power to deal with the problem if a district was unable to carry out its function. My right hon. Friend indicated that the Minister was lax in not reading the Amendment properly and not making provision for this reserve power while allowing the districts to perform the function which we sought to give them.
On many occasions in the past the Minister has listened to reason and had second thoughts. Regardless of some of the contentious things that have been said


during the debates on the Bill, the Minister has earned a reputation for giving way to a good case. He should agree that where no criticism can be made of the processes of collection there is a good case for having a unified system of collection and disposal. That principle has been accepted for Wales, and I hope that the Minister will see sense, listen to the voices from both sides of the House, and agree to give the same right to England.

Mr. Roger Moate: I support the views expressed by all those who have spoken so far, with the exception of one hon. Member, in support of the Amendment. I do not go as far as the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) went in suggesting that the pride and hope of districts depend upon their having this power. The new structure of local government is based on a stronger foundation than refuse and rubbish.
My name is to the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and accept the proposal put forward in it. The Government have frequently said that they want the districts to be strong. Where there is an area of doubt the Government should make the presumption infavour of passing the function to the district council. I do not think that the case has been proved against the logic of keeping the powers of refuse collection and disposal together. That is the logical case, and it is up to the Government to prove that there is a strong argument against it.
The argument that is normally put forward is that the costs of modern incineration plants are too great, but I do not think that that is borne out by the evidence. The list provided to us shows that the costs of modern incineration plants range from £250,000 to £500,000. The cost of plant at Blaby is £1 million or thereabouts. But these costs are well within the abilities and powers of the new and substantial districts. They can support the costs of incineration plants, and therefore there is no case on financial grounds for preventing them from having the power to dispose of the rubbish which the Government have graciously allowed them to collect.
There is an even stronger case for saying that districts should be allowed to maintain control over land reclaim-

tion and tipping within their areas. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). In an area where there are large amounts of land to be reclaimed and where there are a large number of residents who, when the warm weather is with us, as it is now, complain bitterly about the smell and unsightly aspects of these tips—and I interpose here my welcome of the strong rules which the Government have laid down in the code on tipping—local districts with knowledge of the area and subject to local pressures will be far more responsive to ensuring that the tips are properly controlled than will a relatively remote county council.
I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about this. There is nothing in the disposal of refuse that is beyond the resources of the new districts. If greater problems arise on particular matters, I do not believe that they will not be resolved by proper co-ordination and co-operation between districts and districts, and between districts and the county council. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I hope that we can prevail upon the Minister to look at the matter from a commonsense point of view and accept the Amendment. The vast majority of those who served on local borough and urban district councils before coming to the House certainly look at it that way.
The local council on which I served gave me power to inspect its old incenerator. This was when I was a member of the Mansfield Borough Council about eight years ago. One or two of us looked at the incinerator and recommended that it be closed at once. The council accepted our recommendation, and the tale of the council trying to get another incinerator has gradually unfolded over the last eight years.
First, we were told that the Mansfield Borough Council was not large enough to have an incinerator of its own. Our delegation to the Minister was sent away to see whether it could get other local councils involved in this incinerator plan. This we did. After some protracted negotiations we managed to get some other urban district areas involved with incineration. They have all come in together. But the point is that we now


have this incinerator within the area, which covers only the area of the new district council which we shall have through the new boundaries. This has come about purely voluntarily within our area. The new incinerator is built but it has not yet started to function. In this particular area we now find that after the protracted work we shall lose the incinerator, if the Minister does not accept the Amendment, to the new county council or unitary authority.
I am particularly interested in the reason why the Minister will reject this Amendment, because most of us with experience of local government, from a commonsense point of view, would accept the Amendment without hesitation.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I oppose the Amendment. I must tell the House that I am a convert, because I used to believe that it was perfectly possible for the district councils to retain this power of refuse disposal. But after further consideration of the matter I believe that in the first instance I was wrong.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) spoke in support of the Amendment. If we consider placing the borough of Swindon in the new district which almost certainly will exist in the future—in other words, a district which consists of the present borough plus one rural district in my constituency—and consider this new district, we find that there are two alternatives which would face the district council if it were responsible for refuse disposal. That district could invest in some incineration plant or some other form of disposal plant, or it could bury its refuse somewhere within the district.
Regarding the first alternative, bearing in mind the expense involved in incineration plants, I should have thought that the ratepayers of that new district would prefer the burden to be spread over a wider population, knowing that the plant would be perfectly capable of serving a wider population, than to bear the full financial burden themselves. Regarding the second alternative, in the foreseeable future it may well be that a number of possible tip sites become available within that new district, although not very many come to mind.
It is for that reason that I believe it is right that the county should be responsible. It seems that there will be many new districts in which it will be very difficult to find suitable tips. That being so, unless there is to be appalling controversy between new districts, it seems wise that the county should take a wide view of all the refuse disposal requirements within the county area and should plan accordingly.
9.0 p.m.
Although I oppose the Amendment, my opposition is somewhat academic. Indeed, I think that the support for the Amendment is to some extent academic, because the point may have been conceded by the Government on Amendment No. 306 propounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) early on Tuesday morning. That Amendment states:
…it shall be competent for that district council to request the council of the county in which it is situate to make arrangements under this section with the district council for the discharge of all or any of those functions",
meaning functions which have been previously carried out by the district council.
The debate is somewhat academic, because the new districts in accordance with the principle behind that Amendment, the acceptance of which I regretted enormously, had claimed the right to dispose of their refuse in any case, subject to the Secretary of State's agreement. In spite of this academic but not unimportant point, I strongly oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Will my hon. Friend deal with the difference between agency agreements and responsibility for the services? He has confused the two by leaving the matter where he has.

Mr. Morrison: I accept that there is a difference between agency and responsibility. Nevertheless, a proportion of the argument which has been advanced from the district point of view arises because at present the district authorities contain the greater part of the skill which is available in refuse disposal. Although there is a difference between agency and responsibility, the pride of boroughs such as Blackburn and Plymouth would be taken care of adequately by the Amendment


proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Ronald Brown: This is the second time round for me in this argument on transfer of functions. The only consistency of attitude is that on the part of the Government: they took the same view in 1962 after the Report of the Herbert Commission. Regrettably, in those days the Association of Municipal Corporations was not prepared to accept that view. To argue that district councils should have the right of disposal in the provinces but that in the Greater London area it should be the Greater London Council outstrips almost anything.
I believe now, as I believed in those days, that the London boroughs have the facilities to carry out their own disposal. Although the duty of disposal was laid upon the Greater London Council, it did not discharge that duty but asked the London boroughs to do so, because the Greater London Council did not have the facilities for disposal. Eight years later the GLC is still not entirely responsible for disposal, although it is technically responsible for disposal.
I support the AMC view on this and abide by the views I held in 1962. I believe that the local authority can do it.
When I was responsible for getting this work done, our problem related to the number of sites oh which to dispose rubbish. We were at the mercy of speculators who have gravel pits and who held us up for ransom. When we decided to tip into the Thames, it was a question of environmental pollution caused by local government. We took it to Pitsea and dumped it in the river. The price went up and up year after year. We made seven-year contracts but at the end of the seven years there were enormous rises in costs and we were finally blackmailed into accepting them. We had no alternative. If we had not accepted the prices they were charging we would have been left with a load of rubbish and nowhere to put it.
I support the view that the boroughs and the district councils should be left to get on with it. But I hope that the proposed district councils have looked at the difficulties they may encounter. We had to face this in London and we had to resolve the problems at a great deal

of expense to the ratepayers. When the transfer of London was taking place in 1963 I forecast to the then Government that it would cost us about a 10s. rate over five years for the transfer alone. That is exactly what it cost.
One of the factors in the argument is that it is intended to introduce incinerators, and hon. Members were speaking glibly about them costing £500,000 or £1,000,000.But it is a different proposition when it comes to putting a theory into practice. They may well find that after locating a suitable site for the incinerator, one which provides easy access for the heavy vehicles carrying the refuse, it will cost even more than £1,000,000.
I support the proposal but I urge those who also support it with such eagerness to ensure that the proposed district councils know exactly how much it will cost their ratepayers.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I support the Amendment. We are dealing here with a matter of cost and logic. The larger boroughs that have been carrying out these services for many years already have the equipment that is necessary for the collection and disposal of rubbish. In my constituency there is an enormous chalk pit which is being filled by the council, and when it is full, it will be used as a housing site. It will take several years to fill it. It seems absolute nonsense that a local authority the size of Gillingham which has carried out this function for many years should not now be allowed to do so.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I understand my hon. Friend's point about civic pride, but what happens when the chalk pit is full and the housing estate is built?

Mr. Burden: That will be several years ahead. If disposal is carried out at county level and rubbish is to be drawn in from all the districts and dumped in new pits, they will either have to be enormous or there will have to be many such pits.
We are talking about rubbish—but I do not think that what I am saying is rubbish. One of the essentials in the disposal of refuse is that it should be disposed of as near as possible to the point of collection, not only because it is much more economical to do so but also to minimise the risk of disease. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes


(Mr. Charles Morrison) thought of the size of incinerator which will be required to cope with the rubbish from the county, particularly in an area such as mine, which consists of three considerable boroughs—Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham
Where are the advantages of all this? How will it save much money? If it is carried to its logical conclusion and the local authorities are not to be allowed to carry on this function, all the equipment they now have, which must have cost a great deal of money, will no longer be used. It will be made useless.
Prompt disposal is not only desirable but necessary. What about the roads spreading out from the area in which the operations are undertaken by the council? will it be desirable to have vehicles carrying rubbish travelling often many miles and converging on the site? There may well be bottlenecks causing hold-ups and making it impossible to dispose of the rubbish as quickly as the input demands.
Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will give the Amendment a great deal of consideration, bearing in mind practicalities and the fact that the function has been carried on satisfactorily by the bigger boroughs that will now be formed into districts. The change will inevitably cost more because of the distances over which the refuse must be conveyed. The rubbish will in any case have to be handled just as many times as before, and therefore the transport costs will be that much higher. From the health point of view it is also better that the rubbish should be disposed of as near the point of collection as possible.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: My hon. Friend says that the plant will become obsolete. Surely the county council will take it over and use it?

Mr. Burden: That is an extraordinary argument. What is now suggested is, presumably, that the county council will collect the incinerators in Gillingham, Chatham and Rochester and take them to a central point, re-establishing them there. That is an Alice in Wonderland idea, complete nonsense. Far better from every point of view to leave this whole function to the districts such as Gillingham.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: I add my support to the voices that have advocated that district councils should remain responsible for refuse disposal. Many of the existing county boroughs are already efficiently and adequately carrying out that function. They will be enlarged by becoming part of the new district council areas. It is wrong to take away the function of refuse disposal from authorities that have been carrying it out satisfactorily.
Many county boroughs have recently invested a great deal of capital in building new incinerators for the purpose. My own county borough of Gates head has recently reached agreement with its neighbouring authorities, and they have co-operatively built a new incinerator costing many thousands of pounds which they will not now operate themselves. It is ludicrous to take the function away from those authorities which have satisfactorily carried out the work of refuse disposal and put it into the hands of the metropolitan counties and the non-metropolitan counties.
The purpose of my Amendment, No. 879, is not to be dogmatic and not to say that throughout the country the district councils should be responsible for the function. Indeed, in certain parts of the country there may be a very good reason why the metropolitan and non-metropolitan county councils should be responsible for carrying out this task. There may be, in other parts of the country, a good reason why the function should be carried out by the district councils.
My Amendment would give to the metropolitan and non-metropolitan county councils the opportunity of negotiating in certain circumstances for the district councils to carry out these functions. If the Amendment were accepted it would be found that where it was necessary and desirable for the county councils to be responsible for refuse disposal, that could be done. In other circumstances, where it was not suitable for the county councils to carry out this task, they could negotiate with the district councils to do it on their behalf. This would introduce an element of flexibility into the Bill, which could be applied throughout the country to meet the demands and circumstances in individual areas.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: The lay public may wonder how it is that 15 hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen and one right hon. Lady have all spoken on the subject whether district councils or county councils should deal with the collection and disposal of refuse. The reason is perhaps more important than people outside might understand. It highlights the fundamental weakness in the Bill, the fact that since the Government have decided that there shall be two tiers of government they have to look around for powers to give to each of those tiers. I am not arguing for the unitary system because the House and the Committee have decided that that system is not the one to use. I must argue within the framework of the Bill, but it has to be pointed out that the Bill is illogical, inconsistent and is bound to give rise to the sort of anomalies about which we have heard.
After all, out of 16 speeches, 13 were wholly against the county councils having the disposal function and two were infavour, one being the speech of the convert. I always listen with great respect and admiration to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison). He put his case with great charm and, as he has put the case both ways on this occasion, I am doubly interested in what he said. Even he had to admit that the question was largely academic. The third speech was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown). Here is an interesting situation. A matter of 10 years ago the Government said, "Let the county deal with disposal". Eight years have gone by in the equivalent of the district council and the London boroughs are still doing the job. That is a bit of practical expertise in which we might be interested. It takes a genius to decide that refuse, to distinguish it from Gaul, is divisible into two parts. The one major function in dealing with refuse is to collect it and the other major function is to dispose of it. And never the twain shall meet—or, at least, if they do, it is probably in some little village in Warwickshire not far from the home of the Secretary of State, if my information is correct.

Mr. Leadbitter: Rotten Row!

Mr. Silkin: Wherever it may be, but never the twain shall meet administratively;

and it is an absurdity, because this is all one process. I myself am not dogmatic. If the Under-Secretary of State were to say to us, "Let it all be in the county" I might very well find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes. This might be the thing to do. If it were all to be with the district, then I certainly would find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Northants, South. But what in fact the Minister is doing is dividing it.
I have been pondering for some time—I pondered it in Committee and I am pondering it again now—how this should have arisen. I can only assume that somewhere along the line, perhaps at one of those early morning conferences which, we are told, take place in the new, trendy, whizz-kid Department of the Environment, at nine o'clock in the morning or whenever it may be, my dear friend and opponent the Minister for Local Government said, "You know, we are running out of power, we are running out of functions". I do not know, but at that moment, I imagine, the then Under-secretary, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, "Eureka!"—or whatever is the Department of the Environment's equivalent to eureka—"Why do we not divide refuse up?" I can imagine the tremendous hush with which this brilliant suggestion was greeted. In the course of time, no doubt, the news of it even reached 10 Downing Street and the Prime Minister said, "I have been wondering who could sell Concorde." And that, I imagine is the explanation for the sudden rise of the present Minister for Aerospace.
Here we have not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) suggested, inexperienced district councils which do not know about the disposal of refuse. On the contrary, we have those councils which have been doing it for years. It is the county councils which are ignorant of it, not district councils. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the right hon. Lady's constituency and her county borough or the hon. Lady's constituency of Plymouth and her county borough, but there are even bigger boroughs. What do we make of Bristol, for example, with a population of nearly 500,000? What is to happen there is that that conurbation—because that is what it is—with


those 500,000 becomes a district council under this Bill, and, of course, is then considered quite incapable of disposing of its own refuse. A new County of Avon is created and it is to be the authority which has to dispose of refuse. In case Bristol, Plymouth, Blackburn—wherever—may feel affronted, they will be allowed to go on collecting refuse. They will be, as it were, the totters of the new local government scheme.
It does not make sense. The Minister may argue that the expertise which once lay with the county boroughs of the size of Bristol, Plymouth, Blackburn, or even smaller ones which have expertise—I am sorry I omitted Gillingham, which is a very great conurbation, I agree—will play a part in the new counties; their expertise will, but not, I gather, their incinerators. That inevitably will be so. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will flog some in Europe. I do not know. But whether that be so or not, the new county authority, unless this Amendment is carried, is to be charged with half the job, with the disposal.
If the Minister says that the county authorities can always rely on the expertise of the district councils—Bristol, Gillingham and the rest—hon. Members are entitled to ask why we should not leave the expertise with those who are already doing the job. Otherwise we shall find the London situation spreading all over the country, and this would be a catastrophe. The trouble with the Bill—

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the size of Bristol and its expertise. The county may well ask Bristol to undertake in its incinerators refuse disposal for the whole County of Avon, which will mean great hardship for the people of Bristol.

Mr. Silkin: I am afraid that that is what will happen, in which case, are we not entitled to ask why we should not leave it as it is? What is the justification for the change? No, it is an illogical principle. If we have to have the Bill—and I accept that it is so—which will set its seal on local government for many years to come, let us at least avoid the sillier illogicalities.
The Under-Secretary of State should say straight away that he accepts the

Amendment. He has seen and heard the feeling of the House from both parties. The parties, I think, are equally united on this. If he does not accept it, I hope that the hon. Member for Northants, South will press on with the Amendment. We on this side of the House will give him all the support we can.

Mr. Speed: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) for the moderate way in which he moved his Amendment. With great respect to right hon. and hon. Members, we have been arguing on the question of refuse collection and disposal as it has been up to now. One would think that recent happenings on environmental matters and pollution of the countryside had not crossed the ken of the House. I do not, as my hon. Friend suggested, accept that the present situation on dumping is satisfactory. I regard dumping as a barbaric way of disposing of refuse and the throw-away aspects of the so-called civilised society. I go further and say that I think that fairly soon we shall get to the stage when dumping and tipping are used only for the reclamation of unsightly dumps in various parts of the countryside and paper, glass, tin cans and all the rest are things of the past. If this is to happen, we must organise ourselves differently.
I imply no disrespect to the local authorities which have been coping with the problem over the years, but several things have happened. We are getting to the stage of new technologies which will enable us to deal with the problem in a more sensible way. These new technologies are extremely expensive, and that means that we shall have to consider the problem over a much wider area than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been prepared to argue.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) spoke about recycling, an extremely important matter. When one considers our comparatively limited resources, it is crazy that we should be pouring away and burying in the ground many materials and elements that could be used again. But recycling is an extremely expensive process requiring sophisticated plant and sophisticated operators and management to carry it out. We therefore have to ask our selves—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that recycling processes are used very successfully in the Channel Islands, which are not by any stretch of the imagination gigantic?

Mr. Speed: I am delighted to hear it, but, unfortunately, they are not being used in many parts of the country at the moment. The Channel Islands are not a large industrial complex. The problems of industrial and domestic waste there are nothing like the problems we face in our metropolitan counties or, indeed, in most of our counties.
9.30 p.m.
In reorganising local government we must look carefully at the system to see whether we can improve it. Clause 101 has been mentioned, and I am sure that its provisions will be the answer to points raised by a number of hon. Members. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and others argued "We in our county borough have a great new incinerator. It is working extremely well, and we are building up expertise." I believe that even if an Amendment on this subject had not been accepted in principle by my right hon. Friend the other evening, Clause 101 would probably have dealt with the situation. If this is done on an agency basis in terms of expertise, then no doubt Blackburn and other places will carry on with refuse disposal. The final powers rest with the county as refuse disposal authority.

Mr. John Silkin: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why a new Avon will be so much better than the old Bristol?

Mr. Speed: My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said how terrible it was that Bristol had its new incinerator and that there would be a disadvantage because Avon would use it as well. If I were a Bristol ratepayer, and knew that my plant in Bristol was being under-utilised, I should be pleased that other people elsewhere would be sharing its cost.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps one ratepayer of Bristol may be allowed to point out that he has received no representations from the Bristol Corporation about its incinerator or anything else connected with it.

Mr. Speed: I bow to my hon. Friend's local knowledge. This is an important point. Where there are expensive pieces of plant with a large capacity, this will be financially all to the good if it can cover a wider area. This will be taken into account by county refuse disposal authorities.

Mr. Burden: Does not my hon. Friend realise that if Gillingham now has to cart its refuse 20 or 30 miles away, it will involve Gillingham in heavy capital cost in buying the extra vehicles which will be needed to transport the refuse that extra distance?

Mr. Speed: If boroughs have existing incinerators, then I find it hard to believe that the counties will close them down. If boroughs have not the plant and have problems, then clearly the county with its greater financial resources can look at the problem overall. The county may say "We shall need an incinerator in the area of the Medway towns if there is not one there at the moment."
To think that there must be one enormous plant to cover the whole county will not necessarily be borne out in practice. The county will be highway and transportation authorities as well and will have a vested interest in seeing that access to these plants is good and sensible.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) mentioned his area, and indeed part of mine, as being rubbish dumps for Warwickshire. The hon. Gentleman, having looked quite recently at the problem of toxic waste in his area, must appreciate that we face massive problems of disposing of these sometimes dangerous, sometimes merely unpleasant, industrial wastes and effluents. We have passed an interim piece of legislation to try to deal with the matter in the short term. Clearly, more substantial legislationwill be needed. It is important that the disposal of toxic wastes and effluents should be properly controlled. On occasion this would need sophisticated plant, and at other times it may be that pits or holes can be used if the waste is properly controlled and treated.
We are entering a new dimension in trying to deal with the dangerous wastes which emanate from industry, and this surely means that there must be a much wider examination of the problem. The county can look at the area as a whole.


rather than an individual district, which must be limited in its geographical—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Amendment is not specifically about toxic wastes. I am concerned about the fact that under the Bill Warwickshire County Council will be able to tip rubbish all over Nuneaton, and Nuneaton will be able to do nothing about it.

Mr. Speed: Of course, Nuneaton Borough Council can also tip rubbish all over Nuneaton, if it wishes to do so.
Listening to some right hon. and hon. Members, sometimes I have the impression that county councillors will be powerless and ineffective. That is not my view. With the new county councils and the new councillors who will be elected to them, there will not be a faceless bureaucracy suddenly stamping into an area saying, "We shall tip all our rubbish here."
We are thinking still in terms of the past. If I thought that we should continue on the basis of the tipping which has been occurring over hundreds of years, the arguments advanced by right hon. and hon. Members might be right. However, we have to get away from the uncivilised concept of dealing with the rubbish from our factories and households in the way that we have in the past.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have argued passionately in favour of this function remaining with the districts. Others have argued differently because they believe in the unitary system of government and, on that basis, they think that the more functions that they can give the districts the nearer they will get to their concept and that of the last Administration. We have got away from that problem, and we now have a two-tier system of government. We have to make sure that the system is effective.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) challenged me about Wales. It is not my brief, because we are not discussing Wales as such, but perhaps I may deal with the point if I am not out of order in doing so. A number of individual district councils in Wales will be considerably bigger than counties in this country. The new districts in Cardiganshire and Montgomery-

shire are serving areas which are larger and much more difficult in terms of terrain than English counties such as Bedfordshire and Tyneside.

Mr. Leadbitter: The question of size is not relevant. The capacity of a district in terms of population and rateable value to deal with these problems is more relevant. The hon. Gentleman's original argument on the question of technology and referring to districts in England falls short when it comes to Wales, and he knows it.

Mr. Speed: Wales is a separate case. Looking at the size of the counties in Wales, clearly there are special and difficult problems for the Principality. However, we are discussing the disposal of refuse in England. Wales is a separate case and, having given those two examples of districts substantially larger than existing English counties, it is clear that there is a limit in the size beyond which one cannot go for refuse disposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) made a very important point which was echoed by a number of other hon. Members, although they did not support his point. It is that if one had an ideal situation whereby the holes in the land that one wished to reclaim by tipping were distributed evenly, that would be fine. But that is not the situation. Some areas have land which is eminently suitable for tipping for reclamation. Others have difficulty in finding even a site for an incinerator. Again, a county is in a better position to look at the geographical spread within its own area so that reclamation by tipping can be done sensibly and so that incinerators can be sited to the best effect taking account of the very important transportation points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) discussed the power and viability of district councils to deal with this problem, especially in terms of the expensive and sophisticated equipment which is required.
On the Boundary Commission designate's proposals, 190 out of the 274 proposed district councils have populations of less than 100,000. In an ideal situation the population that we would try to get to serve a sophisticated incinerator or recycling plant is more than double that. Therefore, I question whether, bearing in


mind the other matters I have mentioned, it would be proper for the districts to take over.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) shared the doubts expressed by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) about the division of responsibilities. We are talking about two quite separate functions. The collection of refuse from dustbins is essentially a transportation problem. The disposal of refuse will be a problem increasingly involving fairly highly skilled technologies. The carting of refuse from A to B is admirably done and needs a great deal of scheduling, and so on, but I cannot see how it can be equated with the kind of incinerators about which the right hon. Member for Blackburn was talking, or some of the new recycling plants.

Mr. Costain: Will my hon. Friend explain a simple point? If there is a hold up with the refuse lorries going to the disposal point and the borough engineer or the new district engineer gets on to the lorry drivers and they say, "We have been delayed because of hold ups", does he then ring up County Hall and start a row about who is to blame? Would not this be better under one management so that the responsibility is clear?

Mr. Speed: That is not a very good argument. We expect the districts and counties to work well together on many of these matters, as they do now. For example, what happens if a farmer takes his milk to the creamery—this arises on a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers)—and there is a strike at one plant, but not at another? We have many situations where goods are collected and taken to a different plant where they are processed and redistributed by a different organisation or firm. In an extreme situation it would be difficult if the process plant operatives were on strike and the lorry drivers were not, or vice versa, such as between dairies and milkmen and farmers. We cannot plan the basis of the reorganisation of an important factor like this on a situation where there may be a local disagreement with the lorry drivers or an industrial dispute of some kind.
Bearing in mind that the local authority is to be represented not only

by district councillors but by county councillors and that it is in their interests that this machinery should, and I am sure will, work smoothly and adequately, we cannot pay too much attention to that kind of difficulty.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman is dismissing his hon. Friend's argument too lightly. This is an important point. The collection of refuse in most of our urban cities and towns often involves a highly sophisticated bonus scheme for most of the operatives. Industrial goodwill depends on them being able to collect the refuse, dispose of it rapidly at the refuse plant, and return. Difficulties between two different employing agencies could cause great distress. We need think back only to the Lambeth strike to realise the havoc that such a situation would bring about in an industrial city.

Mr. Speed: Certainly. That could happen even if the whole operation were organised by either a county council or a district council. It does not follow that all the operatives concerned would be members of the same union. I should expect that in some of the new plants they would not be members of the same union.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned metropolitan urban areas. The Amendment does not deal with metropolitan districts. If we were to have that situation there would be an argument for making the metropolitan districts the refuse disposal authorities rather than the metropolitan counties, which my hon. Friend would not accept. There are problems which can arise over this matter. For example, if there is bad weather, the refuse collection lorries will not be able to get to the refuse collection site.
9.45 p.m.
However, these problems do not invalidate the fundamental concept that we have to get both household and industrial refuse disposal on a more rational and civilised basis. In our view, the matter has to be looked at over a wide area. Tipping will have to be confined increasingly to genuine land reclamation, and the sort of fly tipping with which we have had to put up for too long will have to stop. We shall look at not only incinerators but sophisticated new recycling plants where we can make use of the waste.
These matters lead the Government to the view that this approach will need increasing expertise and resources. I say that with no disrespect to all the excellent work which has been done so far. Where there are existing authorities which have this expertise and resources, then Clause 101 and the Amendments my right hon. Friend has promised will ensure that their expertise and resources can continue to be used. We are trying to think of the future. We are trying to achieve the cleaning up of the countryside and getting rid of refuse. We must take a long view, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am sure that we all feel that we have had a useful and interesting debate on a matter of high interest. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made the best of a poor case. He mentioned a number of times that he considers tipping to be uncivilised. That is a damning phrase. Of course, refuse collection and disposal is not an attractive subject. However, it is a matter that needs to be dealt with in realistic terms.
There is no doubt that the arrangements for the tipping of refuse can be and are abused. On the other hand, tipping is an economical way of disposal. It is a method which ensures land reclamation and it is widely practised. It is a method which will continue for many years to come. To base one's recommendations on the belief that tipping is uncivilised and that we should see the back of it as soon as we can is idealism. It is right to take that view, but it is not practical politics. That is the top and bottom of the tipping question.
Most of the Under-Secretary of State's argument turns on the question of scale. That leads him to say that the larger the scale, the better will be the arrangements. That does not stand up to examination because of the problems of the routing of disposal and the necessity, as far as possible, to get it dumped as near as possible to the area from which it has been collected. My hon. Friend talked about recycling. Some of us have seen the research that is being done on recycling, and it is at an early stage. It will be ten, twenty or thirty years before we can get any so-called sophisticated methods of recycling.
I agree that we need great improvements in the disposal of refuse, but to base administrative matters on the necessity for highly skilled technologists—the implication was that they will be available at almost every street corner to see that refuse is sensibly put away—will not stand up to the facts of the situation.
The question of scale produces difficulties of management, and my hon. Friend skated lightly over that important part of the problem. He avoided the question of experience which lies with the existing district authorities. The counties have no such experience. He pleads, as some of my other hon. Friends have done, the benefit of the agency system, but to reveal the thinking that lies behind this proposal one has only to refer to the comments in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development, when he said:
I think that there would be only a few occasions in future when the county would arrange for a disposal function to be carried out by a district…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 22nd February, 1972; c. 1797.]
To say that in terms of refuse disposal is to ignore a tremendous amount of the difficulties and the problems which this public service provides. The solution, if it is a question of scale, lies in the getting together of those district councils and county boroughs which have the experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) took up my point about Blaby Rural District Council and the fact that the incinerator lies within his constituency. He made a case for co-ordination and co-operation of the services. But there, Blaby RDC, Wigston UDC and Leicester county borough got together and saw that the best solution lay in the development of an incinerator. It cost £1½ million and it provides disposal at a very low cost per head £1·16 for Blaby, £1·19 for Wigston and £0·42 for Leicester county borough. Those figures provide the best prospectus for the effective disposal of refuse.

Mr. Farr: The joint population served by the incinerator at Wigston is almost as much as the total population of one of the new counties proposed under the Bill for England and Wales.

Mr. Jones: That point adds to my argument. The best method was for those three authorities to get together, so where lies the argument for changing the system and putting all the responsibility on the counties?
I was interested to note the conversion of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), because in Committee he made a very constructive proposal—that the districts should have the responsibility for disposal and that in the absence of an effective arrangement the county should be given some responsibility for adjudication whether the service was being adequately conducted. I felt that to be a good suggestion and a sensible compromise in the light of the Government's determination, so it

appears, to involve the counties in the question of disposal.

I am disappointed but not surprised by the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State. His case is not made out. I am sure that we shall have increasing problems and increasing reliance on agency arrangements. I am pleased to see the support in the House for the Amendment, which would do what I think should be done—that is, leave the responsibility for disposal with the new district authorities.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 186.

Division No. 303.]
AYES
[9.55 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Albu, Austen
Forrester, John
McBride, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McElhone, Frank


Allen, Scholefield
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackie, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden, F.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bidwell, Sydney
Hannan, Wlliam (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harper, Joseph
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mikardo, Ian


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch a F'bury)
Horam, John
Milne, Edward


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Burden, F. A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moate, Roger


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Molloy, William


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Ronald King


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony 
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney,C.)
Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kerr, Russell
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Probert, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George
Roper, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Leonard, Dick
Short,Rt. Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Ewing, Henry
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)






Skinner, Dennis
Tuck, Raphael
Whitlock, William


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Spearing, Nigel
Vickers, Dame Joan
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Steel, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wallace, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Watkins, David
Woof, Robert


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Weitzman, David



Strang, Gavin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Taverne, Dick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. John Golding


Torney, Tom




NOES


Adley, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gummer, Selwyn
Peel, John


Astor, John
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biffen, John
Hastings, Stephen
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Havers, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Body, Richard
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Redmond, Robert


Boscawen, Robert
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bowdon, Andrew
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bray, Ronald
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Rost, Peter


Bryan, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Carlisle, Mark
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Sir Richard


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jopling, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; 'L'mington)


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Soref, Harold


Cockeram, Eric
Kilfedder, James
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Spence, John


Cooper, A. E.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sproat, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Stainton, Keith


Critchley, Julian
Lambton, Lord
Stanbrook, Ivor


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Crowder, F. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stokes, John


Dean, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tapsell, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dixon, Piers
Loveridge, John
Tebbit, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Luce, R. N.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, R. A.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Elliot. Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fell, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fidler, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Finsberg. Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Money, Ernle
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, Jerry


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilkinson, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fowler, Norman
Morrison, Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mudd, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Fry, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Worsley, Marcus


Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Airey



Goodhew, Victor
Normanton, Tom



Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Gray, Hamish
Osborn, John
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Green, Alan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Speaker: Amendment No. 687.

Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not expect that the Leader of the House will make a statement, because he may be a little too busy now to do so, but I hope that the Government, having listened to the voice of the House on this occasion, will not attempt to reverse the decision of the

House in another place. I should be grateful for a statement to that effect.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The Government carefully considered a number of reports on this topic, published by the previous Government, which advocated that refuse disposal should be organised on much larger areas. So I hope that perhaps, in the time available to us, both sides of the House will carefully consider the effects on environmental policies and pollution of this particular decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this.

Mr. Speed: I shall not move Amendment No. 687 now, Mr. Speaker, in view of the previous vote. This part of Schedule 14 would have to be redrafted.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1076, in page 256, line 44, leave out 'or a local authority' and insert—
'a local authority or a parish or community council'.
This is what I call the Clochemerle Amendment. It extends to parish and community councils the powers in Section 87(1) and (2) of the Public Health Act, 1936, to provide public conveniences in proper and convenient situations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) moved a similar Amendment in Committee and argued that such a power is particularly important to parishes in tourist areas and in picturesque villages which attract large numbers of visitors. At that time we fully accepted the intention of my hon. Friend's Amendment. This Amendment does not differ in substance from that originally tabled. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend may not wish to answer this point to night, but would he consider redesigning those terrible signs which are erected in connection with the conveniences about which weare talking? I hope that he will reconsider the rather revolting signs which are scattered around the countryside in this connection.

Mr. Speed: This is essentially a matter for the local authority. In as much as we are adding to the local authorities which can do this, perhaps there will be more artists in the parishes and some local authority areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1090, in page 258, leave out line 26 and insert—
'(a) so much of section 160 of the PublicHealth Act 1875 as incorporates the provisions of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847 with respect to the naming of streets (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as "the original street-naming enactment");
(aa) section 171(4) of the said Act of 1875'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to consider Government Amendments Nos. 1091, 1092, 1093 and 1094.

Mr. Speed: These Amendments are designed to rationalise the provisions re-

lating to street naming and house numbering as they apply to the new local authorities. There are two codes of law relating to street naming. The first, embodied in the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, as incorporated in the Public Health Act, 1875, the original street naming enactment, and in the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1907, empowers local authorities to assign names and numbers of streets, or to alter the name of any street with the consent of two-thirds in number and value of the ratepayers in the street.
The second code is in the Public Health Act, 1925, and gives similar powers to urban authorities as to the original naming of streets. It gives the initiative for changing a street name to urban authorities with the right of appeal to petty sessions by any aggrieved person.
The 1925 provisions, which are more comprehensive and appropriate for urban areas, have to be brought into force for local authority areas and, where they have not been brought into force, the older provisions apply. Therefore, a new district may invent areas to which different provisions apply. These Amendments enable a local authority at any time to choose which provisions shall apply in its area. They differ from the Bill as drafted in clarity and in that previously the choice would have been available only before 1stApril, 1965.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I take the strongest possible exception to the form of Amendment No. 1092. The Government have done some ghastly things, but they should not murder the English language. Line 1 of subsection (2) contains the word "disapplying". No dictionary in the Library—I have consulted all of them—contains this word. This is intolerable. Unless the Minister will give me a firm undertaking to withdraw the Amendment or alter the wording in another place, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Speed: I readily give that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 1091, in page 258, line 28, after 'sections', insert '21'.

No. 1092, in page 258, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 159 and insert—
'(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) below, a local authority may after giving the requisite notice resolve that any of the enactments mentioned in paragraph 24 above shall apply throughout their area or shall cease to apply throughout their area (whether or not, in either case, the enactment applies only to part of their area).
(2) A resolution under this paragraph applying or disapplying the original street-naming enactment, section 21 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 or section 17, 18 or 19 of the Public Health Act 1925 through out a local authority's area may be passed at any time, but any other resolution under this paragraph must be passed before 1st April 1975.
(3) A resolution under this paragraph applying either of the following provisions, that is to say, section 21 of the said Act of 1907 or section 18 of the said Act of 1925, through out an area shall have effect as a resolution disapplying the other provision throughout that area and a resolution under this paragraph applying either of the following provisions, that is to say, the original street-naming enactment or section 19 of the said Act of 1925, throughout an area shall have effect as a resolution disapplying the other provision throughout that area.
(4) A resolution under this paragraph applying or disapplying section 171(4) of the Public Health Act 1875 throughout an area shall not have effect unless approved by the Secretary of State'.

No. 1093, in page 259, line 14, leave out 'or (3)'.

No. 1094, in page 259, line 20, leave out from 'resolution' to 'any' in line 22 and insert—
'applying or disapplying section 171(4) of the Public Health Act 1875 throughout'.

No. 1077, in page 259, line 38. after '19', insert '75'.

No. 1078, in page 260, line 12, after '14', insert 'or 75'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1079, in page 260, line 30, leave out pararaph 33 and insert—
'33. In section 16(1) of the Public Health Act 1925 the words from "in relation" to "county council or" shall cease to have effect'.
This Amendment removes a duplication. Section 16 of the Public Health Act, 1925, imposes various restrictions on the exercise by local authorities of certain functions, including a requirement that the county council shall be consulted where the power to be exercised is in a road maintained by the county council.

The only provision left to which Section 16 applies is Section 14 of the 1925 Act which gives powers to provide seats and drinking fountains. Section 14 is included in paragraph 28(b) of Schedule 14, so that district councils need the highway authority's—that is, the county council's—consent before exercising their powers in relation to a highway. It is unnecessary, therefore, to retain the words to be repealed, which are covered by the requirement in paragraph 28(b).

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 1002, in page 260, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
'34. In section 3(1) of the Parish Councils Act 1957, for the words from the beginning to the word "council", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "The council of a parish or community or, in the case of a parish for which there is no parish council" and for the words "in that part of the parish, as the case may be" there shall be substituted the words "community, or in any part hereof" '.—[Mr. Speed.]

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1095, in page 261, line 6, at end insert—
'37A.—(1) In section 38(1) of that Act for the words "the medical officer of health for any district" there shall be substituted the words "a registered medical practitioner nominated by the local authority for a district" and for the words from "the medical officer of health", in the second place where they occur, to the end there shall be substituted the words "a registered medical practitioner so nominated".
(2) In section 38(2) of that Act for the words from "the medical officer" to the end there shall be substituted the words "a registered medical practitioner so nominated to enter any premises, and for the purposes of that subsection that practitioner shall, if not an officer of the local authority, be treated as one." '.
Section 38(1)(1) of the Public Health Act, 1961, gives power to a justice of the peace to order a medical examination of a person who may be or may have been suffering from a notifiable disease. Section 38(2) of the same Act enables a justice of the peace to grant a medical officer of health powers of entry.
Paragraph (1) of the Amendment replaces the first reference to medical officer of health by a reference to
a registered medical practitioner nominated by the local authority for a district
and the later reference to "the medical medical officer of health" by
a registered medical practitioner so nominated".


These are consequential and definitive Amendments which have no substance.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome the Amendment but it is a little more than merely definitive. It introduces further clarity into these matters which I raised in Committee. Many of us were disturbed about the interregnum which it appears there will be between the provisions in the Bill eliminating the requirement that a medical officer of health in this case shall be appointed by the local authority, and the new provisions likely to arise under the reorganisation of the Health Service.
I raised the particular point about notification of infectious diseases in Committee because there appeared to be at that stage no precise medically qualified provision of anyone to take up the rôle of the medical officer of health. We welcome the provision made here to ensure that there will be a qualified medical practitioner at least to carry out the very important rôle that the medical officer of health has discharged in the past in order to help protect the health of the community. I only regret that so far we have had no clear statement as to what the detailed proposals are to be under the National Health Service, not only for this but for other cases where in the past the medical officer of health has discharged his functions.
We do not have anything to deal with what I believe is a scandalous position of the public health inspector. I shall be glad to have from the Under-Secretary, therefore, while not wanting in any way to delay the business, an assurance that there will be a statement at an early date of the detailed arrangements to be made on the National Health Service about this and other matters for which the medical officer of health has been responsible in the past.

Mr. Speed: The hon. Member will realise that I cannot commit my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security in such a way at this time of night. I have noted what the hon. Member said, but this will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I will certainly pass the hon. Member's comments to him. A great

deal of work has been going on in this field and the intention is that health service re-organisation, local government reorganisation, and local government finance re-organisation will all be effective at the same time.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 253, in page 261, line 43 leave out 'said Act of' and insert
'Health Services and Public Health Act'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The next Amendment is Amendment No. 1096.

Mr. Speed: In view of the vote taken earlier it would not be appropriate at this stage to move that Amendment. I do not intend to move it.

Orders of the Day — Clause 177

WATER AND SEWERAGE

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1070, in page 113, leave out line 9 and insert—
'of all or any of the sewerage functions of local authorities'.
The intention of subsection 3 is to secure greater efficiency in the discharge of local authority sewerage functions by constituting united district and joint boards to discharge those functions in place of the local authorities. The Amendment makes it clear that the subsection applies to the sewerage functions and not to the local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 1071, in page 113, line 18 at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (3) above constituting a united district notwithstanding that there is a joint board discharging sewerage functions for part of that district.'

No. 1072, in page 113, line 33, after 'district', insert—
'and to any joint board discharging sewerage functions for a united district which, or part of which, is proposed to be so included'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1073, in page 114, leave out lines 14 and 15.
The Amendment deletes the definition of "water functions" in the Clause. The definition is unnecessary because an Amendment made in Committee transferred the provision for joint boards and


so forth to Clause 251 where the matter is dealt with as a whole. As a result the term "water functions" is no longer used in this Clause and the definition can be deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 15

AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO WATER AND SEWERAGE

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1156, in page 262, leave out lines 17 to 24.
I understand that it is for the convenience of the House also to discuss Amendment No. 1157, in Schedule 30.
The Amendments are concerned with Section 9 of the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act, 1930, which makes provision as to the expenses under that Act of various authorities. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 was intended to preserve the existing position and empowered the Secretary of State to direct that the expenses of county councils and district councils shall be chargeable only on those parts of their areas which benefit from actions under the Act. The provision made would, however, not conform with Clause 146, which provides that district councils may themselves by resolution declare expenses to be chargeable only on part of their areas and it also left the London borough councils not provided for.
The Amendments make different provisions. Amendment No. 1156 removes paragraph 1 of Schedule 15, and Amendment No. 1157 leaves Section 9 of the 1930 Act operating for county councils and London borough councils, but removes from it all references to urban and rural district councils, leaving the new district councils to Clause 146.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:  No. 688, in page 262, line 29, after '126(4)', insert 'of that Act'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 178

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 734, in page 115, line 35, leave out from 'area' to 'under' in line 36 and insert—

'unless and until a joint planning board is constituted under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or a National Park Committee is appointed'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:
Government Amendments No. 738 and 749; and 750–754.
Amendment No. 485, in page 271, line 24, at end insert—
Provided that where a National Park is contained wholly within one new county, the Secretary of State may by order constitute a special planning board to discharge the functions to which this Part of this Schedule applies as respects the area of the Park, and any enactment relating to joint boards constituted by an order under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 shall apply to a special planning board constituted under this Part of this Schedule and to the order constituting it as it applies to a joint planning board constituted under that section and to the order constituting it.

Mr. Page: We come to a rather important matter, a group of Amendments dealing with the national parks. The Amendment I have moved heads the group, but it is consequential to the later Amendment No. 749.
Subsection (6), which the Amendment seeks to amend, provides that where a new national park is designated or where the area of an existing national park is extended, the county and district planning authorities in the area affected will continue to exercise their functions
until a joint planning board or separate planning committee is established
for that area.
The Amendment replaces the reference to a separate planning committee by a reference to the new type of committee, the National Park Committee, for which provision is made in Amendment No. 749. The small change in the wording, the substitution of "unless and until" for "until", is significant, because in future there will be no statutory requirement to appoint a joint board for national parks.
That Amendment is a drafting Amendment compared with the substantive Amendments with which I now wish to deal. They give effect to the Government's proposals for the administration of national parks which I outlined when we discussed the subject in Committee. Broadly, the Government propose, while


retaining the planning boards for the Lake District and the Peak District, to replace the existing requirements for the setting up of joint boards and the establishment of separate planning committees by a provision for the setting up of a National Parks Committee. That Committee will be set up by the county or counties in whose area the national park lies. Then we shall require for each park, including the Lake District and Peak District, the appointment of a national park officer and the preparation of a national park plan. That is putting our proposals in a very small nutshell. There is much more to them.
I refer first to Amendment No. 749 and new Schedule 17—what I think will become the national parks charter. The new paragraph 1 of Schedule 17 relates solely to the Peak Park Planning Board. The Peak Park will be the only case in which there will be a joint planning board in existence immediately after 1st April, 1974 and in which from that date the park will be comprised in two or more new counties. The Government propose to retain the Peak Park Planning Board and this paragraph requires the Secretary of State for the Environment to make an order reconstituting the board.
The powers which the board must be given are those set out in the existing paragraph 12 of Schedule 17 which are all the functions of a local planning authority, under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, the Countryside Act, 1968 and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. These are the same functions as are at present exercised by the Peak Park Planning Board. New paragraph 2 to the new Schedule deals with the position should a new joint board be established for a national park. The power remains for the Secretary of State to make an order constituting the board and conferring on it the functions of a local planning authority under those Acts which I have mentioned.
New paragraph 3 is concerned solely with the Lake District Planning Board. The Lake District will be the only case in which, immediately before 1st April, 1974, there is an existing joint board and in which on that date the park will be wholly within one new county. This paragraph requires the Secretary of State

to make an order reconstituting the board as a special planning board. Subsequent references in the Schedule to a special planning board consequently refer to the Lake District Board. The board is to be given the same functions as it has now and the same as those which will be given to the Peak Park Planning Board.
New paragraph 4 enables the Secretary of State by order to confer on the Peak Park Planning Board and the Lake District Planning Board and on any new joint board, should one be established for a national park, either initially or at a later date, any additional countryside functions, for example functions which in the opinion of the appropriate Secretary of State relate to the countryside and are appropriate for reference to the board.
New paragraph 5 provides that where there is no joint planning board or special planning board for a national park, the new county or counties in whose area or areas the park lies must arrange under Clause 101 for the setting up of a national park committee that will cover the whole area of the park. The county council or county councils concerned must arrange for the committee to be given all their functions as local planning authority under the Statutes which I have mentioned, except the functions described in new paragraph 6 of the Schedule.
Perhaps it would be convenient for me to explain here that Clause 178(4) provides in effect that in a national park the local planning authority functions lie with the county planning authority alone and are not distributed between that authority and the district planning authority so that the new national park committee, being a committee of the county, will inherit all the local planning functions. All those functions are vested in the county.
10.30 p.m.
New paragraph 6 sets out those functions under the 1971 Act which the county or counties concerned are not statutorily required to confer on a national park committee, but the paragraph does not preclude a county planning authority from making arrangements under Clause 101 of this Bill for those functions to be conferred on a national park committee. The functions there described are the preparation of structure and local plans; the operation and use of land which conflicts


with the development plan; the operation and use of land which is partly within the national park and partly outside.
New paragraph 7 protects the validity of anything done or purporting to have been done by a national park committee in pursuance of delegated powers from question on the ground that it ought to have been done by the county council. There cannot be post-mortems on the action of the national park committee.
New paragraph 8 provides that a multi-county national park committee is to be appointed by such one of the county councils as they may agree, or, in default of agreement, jointly by the county council concerned.
Then we come to new paragraph 9, which enables the national park committee to arrange for the district planning authority whose area comprises land within the park to discharge such of the functions delegated to it by the counties as may be agreed between the committee and the Countryside Commission, or, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State.
New paragraph 10 enables a joint planning board or special planning board for a national park, or national park committee, to be given functions over land outside the national park.
Finally, of the new paragraphs, paragraph 11 continues in effect the provision that not less than one-third of the members of each national park board or committee are to be appointed by the appropriate Secretary of State after consultation with the Countryside Commission, and that continues the present practice of a committee being, as it were, a joint committee between local government and central Government; but it is a committee which is directly under the county, and to that extent a committee of the county council—a committee of the county council with very special powers and attributes.
New paragraph 11 A, which is introduced by Amendment No. 753, provides, first, that the members of the national park committee shall in the case of a single-county national park be appointed by the county concerned, and secondly, in the case of a multi-county national park, by such of the constituent counties as may be agreed between them, or, in default of agreement, as determined by

the appropriate Secretary of State. Members are apportioned between each constituent county. The decision, if there is no agreement, lies with the Secretary of State.
New paragraph 11B, C and D deal with the appointment of a national park officer, and this is a new feature entirely. New paragraph 11B provides for the appointment by each national park board or committee of a national park officer, and this applies to both the Peak Park and Lake District as well as to the national park committees of the counties. The national park officer envisaged will have the primary rôle of managing the national park; that is to say, he should not be employed in any other capacity than that of managing the national park, except it be after consultation with the Countryside Commission. It is the Government's hope that the National Park Officer will be an expert in the job and will be devoted full time to it.
The new duties placed on the national park committees relate to the preparation of a management plan. Each board and committee will be charged with the preparation of that plan. This is not quite the same as a local plan in the new planning system, but it may well form the basis of a local plan in due course. Until it does, it is envisaged that it will be much more flexible than a formal local plan. It will be a plan for the good management and development of the park as a park and as a part of the countryside heritage of our land.
I have gone into this in detail because it is a new scheme for national parks which I am sure will operate well. It is based on agreement between the Country-side Commission and the County Councils Association. To that extent, the Government have been happy to carry out the wishes of those two bodies. As the House knows, the Countryside Commission has a special duty in relation to national parks.
There has been some question about whether the district councils should be represented on the national park committees. We have taken the view that, looking at the existing committees which have been in charge of national parks in the past, there have always been representatives of the districts without the matter being laid down in any Statute. I


am sure that that practice will continue and that the districts will be represented. I fear that if it were made a statutory obligation that there should be representatives of the districts which fell within the national park on the national park committee, we should find that we were appointing individuals as representative of certain geographical interests. I think that this is not the right way to find those who will serve well on the national parks committees. They should bring an open mind to their service rather than being delegates from an area.
Having watched this grow over the past few months into the present form in which we have set it out in the Amendments, I feel convinced that we have a scheme which will achieve far greater success in connection with national parks than we have had in the past. I look forward to a great future for the national park committees, which will be supported financially by the Government to a very great extent. I cannot give details of that at present. I hope that it will be part of later legislation dealing with local government finance. We have given an assurance that they will be given financial support, and I am sure that we shall have success with these committees in the future.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I certainly welcome the fact that the Minister has been able to carry out the undertaking he gave in Committeee that he would seek to introduce Amendments either on Report, as he has, or in another place. It is a modest benefit, after the long delays in dealing with the Bill in the House, that the right hon. Gentleman has brought the Amendments forward for discussion here rather than in another place.
Perhaps it would be better for me to mention the elements in these proposals that we fully welcome and support. The Amendment is an example of something to which we give one cheer rather than three cheers. It is a step forward, and that we certainly welcome; but it is by no means the leap forward or the brave change that many hon. Members hoped might have been possible in the focus of local government reorganisation.
We welcome the confirmation of the position concerning both the Peak Dist-

rict and the Lake District, two of the most successful of our national parks, because they carried out the intention of the 1949 Act. They provided a joint board and a coherent system of control which has been fruitful and successful not only for the country as a whole, but for the people living in the area. We regard these two national parks, particularly the Peak District National Park, as examples of what the position should be in all our national parks. This is what our earlier recommendations sought to achieve.
We welcome the Minister's confirmation that a park officer must be appointed to each national park. We have long urged that this should be done. The query we still have is about the authority that officer shall have. In Committee the Minister said that it was his intention that the officer would have comparable authority with the county planning officer. We appreciate that in this whole area the problem is the linking together of the broad national planning picture and the special provisions we have in these areas. We understand that problem. However, it is of the utmost importance that it should be clear that the park officer is not to be a junior official, but someone who carries authority in the area.
The Minister could no doubt say whether it is his intention—as no doubt it is—to issue regulations and explanatory notes making clear what he intends in this regard as in others. We hope it will not merely be a matter of the minimum appointment of one park officer, but that we shall clearly have a staff concentrating largely, if not entirely, upon park duties.
We have wide experience of how the system works in an area like the Peak District. It is possible to reach understandings and to have arrangements about a limited number of other duties which it may be sensible for the park officer to undertake in looking after countryside problems in areas immediately outside the national park. We are overwhelmingly concerned to have a staff whose main duty shall be the work of the park and that this should not be pushed to the end of a long list of duties, as all too often happened in the past in many of our national parks.
We want further clarification of the authority the park officer is to have. We


hope that this will be the start of developing what might be called a park service. I do not mean anything so grandiose as the park service of the National Park Administration of the United States. However, it would be enormously to the benefit of everyone, from the point of view of recruitment and everything else, if we were to begin to have some understanding that there was a service, within which officers could move, linking the national parks with the head office of the Countryside Commission in London or wherever it may be. We would gain a great deal by the concept of a national park service, and I hope that it will be possible.
10.45 p.m.
The Minister said that it is not possible to announce today what the details of the financial set up will be. Naturally we are sorry about that. The Minister explained in Committee that provisions will be inserted into the new Local Government Finance Bill, which we imagine will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament. We would like to have some assurance about that, because at least that Measure will deal with this crucial matter.
It is not much use making appointments unless it is clear that a wholly new attitude is being taken to the financial burden that inevitably will be involved. Not only will the Exchequer be helping considerably with the broad range of special functions—the provisions to be made within the national parks have already been outlined—but for the first time we shall have a clear undertaking to support in a major way the expenses of the staff that are to be employed to undertake the administrative work which is so crucial if we are to make the national parks as effective as I am sure we all want them to be. That is the second point about which we would like some further information, even though we accept that the statutory provision will have to come in the Local Government Finance Bill next Session.
However, there is still a considerable area of disappointment. We are still doing no more than providing county parks. With the exceptions of the Peak District and the Lake District, the parks are county parks. There is no need to delude anyone, although it is our habit to do so. For example, public schools are

not public and national parks are not national. They are county parks within the administration of the county. There is no majority of national membership but a majority of local membership. I am not saying that this is a changed situation, but it is the fact that we should recognise it. I regretted it just as much under the previous Administration as I regret it today.
I have always campaigned for national parks to be purely national, but, alas, we are not to have that situation. However, we want to ensure that they are as independent as possible. We are still sorry that the Minister has not taken the further step of ensuring that there will be an independent park authority. The Minister has gone some way in that direction by establishing a separate committee of the county, but many of us wish he could have gone further. I had an Amendment which would have gone that little bit further and which would have ensured that in those areas where a park was within one county, a special planning board would have been appointed with clear independence. But that proposal is not to be accepted.
But, of course, half a loaf is better than no bread and we welcome the faltering step forward which the Government have taken. We would have liked them to go a little further, at least as far as to say that they would take a discretionary power for the Minister to use, if he desired, to establish a joint board where several counties or authorities are involved or a separate body where a single county is involved.
We should allow more thought to be given to this matter and I hope that the Government will reconsider. I appreciate the feelings of my right hon. and hon. Friends from Wales, who have made it clear that they want to ensure that in Wales, whatever we do in England, they will have nothing of a park which is not controlled tightly by the county itself. Sobe it! Perhaps it would have been better if Wales had been dealt with in a separate Bill. The Welsh could then have made completely different provisions if they had so wished. But we have to deal with this Bill as it is and I regret that the Minister is not giving himself the extra power I suggest.

Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has taken a step forward and I hope that


full opportunity will be taken of the provisions being made and in the full expectation of better financial and manpower resources being available in future. The parks have been shamefully neglected in the past. It is amazing that the National Parks have done so much considering the small resources they have been allowed. In this restricted sense, we welcome the Government's Amendments. We hope they will be successful and will lead to even greater changes in the future.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify two points which he covered briefly in moving the Amendment. The first concerns the possibility of nominating members to national parks committees from a district. As I understood him, he is not reserving any powers in this respect and I feel somewhat disappointed. His argument seemed a little strange. He said, as I understood it, that it is wrong that members of these bodies should be delegates in any sense. He will understand my concern because we are hoping that, within the framework of the districts, it will be possible to have an Exmoor district as one of the districts in the new county of Somerset, and obviously we have a direct interest in the activities of the Exmoor National Park, which lies very largely in the county of Somerset.
Argument has been raging about representation on the national parks committees, and the Government have come down in favour of representation from the county councils. This seems to me to be accepting in part the argument that they should, in a sense, be local delegates. I hope my hon. Friend will give an assurance that there should be some reserve power so that the particular interests of a district like Exmoor can be recognised in the committee.
I would reinforce what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said on the role of the national park officer. I hope that he will have a real position and real authority, because increasingly the problems of the national park are much greater than those which are traditionally regarded as amenity aspects and other commonly understood aspects of the national park.
There is a particular problem. I hope that the national park officer will concern himself with the full fabric of life within a national park. The problem, especially acute in Exmoor area at present, which shows the range and scale of responsibility he might be expected to discharge, is that of housing. We are facing' this because of the very attractiveness of the national park area which makes it a desirable area for second homes and holiday homes for a considerable number of people from different parts of the country. The growth of the motorway system makes national parks ever more accessible. Increasingly, local inhabitants who have lived all their lives in the area, by the very fact that they live in a national park, are finding that they are priced out of the area. It is impossible for them to continue to live there. The village pattern is destroyed and they are forced to travel considerable distances to find any housing within their scope.
This is a particular problem at present and is just the sort of problem which the national park officer will find within his terms of reference—to concern himself with the whole fabric of life in a national park.

Mr. David Clark (Colne Valley): I fully agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) in his last sentiments. One of the great failures of the national parks has been the failure to protect the full fabric of life of the indigenous population, as he said. It becomes a scandal in some national parks where one finds that the business of second homes, with the help of improvement grants, makes for the great danger that some will become little better than middle-class ghettos.
While I look as kindly as I can on the Government Amendments, I am afraid that they will not do much good. I am sorry to be so pessimistic, but it seems to me that the national parks, with the exception of the Peak District Park and of the Lake District Park in certain instances, have failed their local populations and that there is nothing in these Amendments which gives any hope whatever for families who have lived for generations in a national park. I was horrified to read last week of a two-bedroom bungalow in the Lake District fetching £58,000. That is the type of value


one is coming up against in some national parks. These are bought by businessmen from the large industrial conurbations.
In the Amendments two groups of people are trying to put forward points of view—amateurs and professionals. The professional has stated the problem in debate—such as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), who has spent some time working full time on this problem. One comes up with the same answer: if we are to have national parks, they must have full statutory, ad hoc governing bodies. It is no use pretending that our so-called national parks are national. They are nothing of the sort. Even the United Nations does not recognise our national parks as being national because they have not the necessary statutory bodies and planning machinery.
11.0 p.m.
The same theme runs through the reports of the Countryside Commission every year. The Second Report for the year ending September, 1969, stated:
Now that the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act has been on the statute book for 20 years, it is all too plain that amenity considerations in the Parks do not enjoy the priority in public policy that the Act intended that they should.
It goes on to give examples. I regard the Countryside Commission as being one of the professionals.

I turn to the Secretary of State's argument. In February, 1971, he said:
In the Government's view, very little change is needed in the present statutory provisions governing planning functions in national parks.
That statement and what is said in the Second Report of the Countryside Commission are contradictory. The Hob-house Report and the Dower Report reported in favour of statutory ad hoc planning bodies. Paragraph 5 of Appendix D of the Redcliffe-Maud Report on Local Government in England and Wales stated in 1969:
For each national park…there should bea special authority with the sole responsibility for administering the park and employing its own staff for the purpose.…The authority for a national park should meet its expenditure by precepting on the main authorities with territory inside the park.

That recommendation was accepted by the then Government in their White Paper of 1970. Sir Jack Longland in his

report, came down in favour of statutory ad hoc bodies with real power.

We have the Government's rather weak and feeble compromise in the legislation. Perhaps I should not be too churlish because we should be grateful for small mercies, but do not let the Minister pretend that he has satisfied us on this side of the House or the amenity bodies. He has done nothing of the sort. He has put forward a compromise. It is somewhat better than the past system, but it will not solve the problems of the national parks. It will do nothing to help to tackle the problem of growing restriction on access to the national parks. It is a scandle that in the 1970s there is probably less access to the national parks than there was in the 1950s. In my constituency, huge areas of moorland in the Peak District National Park are being fenced off and ramblers who have traditionally used the area have been kept off. Nothing in the Bill will help to tackle the problems of the national parks or of the indigenous population.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred to the question of national park officers. While we welcome what is proposed, the Minister should be more forthcoming and he should tell us more about the rôle and authority of such people. The Minister slipped up when he said that the national park officer could not do other work outside the national park without the "consent" of the Countryside Commission. Then he corrected himself and said without "consultation" with the Commission. The national park officer, appointed by the county council, could be employed on non-national park work even if the Commission objected because the Commission's consent is not required. All the legislation requires is that the Commission should consult—no more, no less.

If the national park officer is to mean anything he must be a person of senior rank who can tell the people at the county council and other departmental officers what the situation is. This raises the other problem of dual loyalty, on the one hand to the county council, and on the other to the national park officer.

We welcome the idea of a management plan. It is something that is very much needed in the national parks, because we must look at our national parks not only


as an entity in themselves, but as an entity serving the whole nation as a recreational area. I am, however, concerned about such a plan. It is all very well drawing up plans, but they have to be enacted, and I have in mind the experience of the Peak National Park. It drew up a plan to divert some traffic on to certain roads and to impose certain restrictions on residential development, but it was cold-shouldered by the Government.

I appreciate that the Minister cannot give the House full details of the financial implications, but there is one thing about which almost all the people concerned with national parks agree, and that is that the national parks must have some financial independence. One reason for the Peak District's huge success is that it has the power to precept upon the rates. Will that power be removed when the new Local Government Finance Bill is brought in next year? Will there be financial independence for the national parks?

I welcome these Amendments in the sense that they are better than nothing, but they are only little better than nothing. I do not think that they will do very much for the indigenous population or for the visitor. Here was a golden opportunity for us to think again about our national parks. We have had 21 years' experience. The Peak District National Park Planning Committee is a glorious example of success, and what distinguishes that national park from all the other national parks, with the marginal exception of the Lake District National Park, is that it has this financial independence and it has its own officers. We cannot ignore those facts.

As I read the speech of the noble lord in the other place, I saw that he acknowledges that the Peak and Lake Districts have been successful, and that conclusion is implicit in the Minister's decision to continue these bodies as they are. But if they have been so successful, why not go the whole hog and put the other national parks on a similar strong, independent footing? If we were to do that, there would be a bright prospect for our national parks.

Dame Joan Vickers: Why are the Lake District and Peak District National Parks

administered by separate bodies? The Lake District National Park lies entirely within the county of Cumbria. Dartmoor National Park lies entirely within the county of Devon. I do not see why they should be treated differently.
I should like to inquire about the persons to be nominated. At the moment there are 10 Devon County Council members, two co-opted members and six members nominated by the Secretary of State. There is none from Plymouth. This district of 365 square miles covers 10 county district councils, and I hope that they will have some representation because they are on the spot and they know a great deal about the area. At present there are 349 listed buildings and 260 ancient monuments, and we have over 4 million visitors annually to the Dartmoor National Park.
The committee's powers include the provision of accommodation, meals, refreshments, camping sites and parking places, and power to preserve the natural beauty and promote its enjoyment by the public. I hope that we shall not see our beautiful national park, Dartmoor, covered with camping sites and refreshment areas, and that there will be some proper planning in the future. Extra footpaths and byways have also been planned, and the care of ancient monuments. I believe that there is to be a sub-committee which will control parking and access generally. That is not very satisfactory without some supervision. I understand that the Countryside Commission has the duty of supervising this committee and that a grant of up to 75 per cent. can be made to the Devon County Council for expenditure.
What are the powers of the districts, if any? I understand that they are limited and that the districts would merely be consulted about any development plans. As there are 10 of these within the national park, I should like to know what type of consultation is likely and whether any of them are likely to be nominated to serve on the committee.

Mr. Graham Page: Replying to the questions raised, particularly by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), may I say that perhaps I should have pursued the hon. Gentleman's Amendment a little more thoroughly in opening the debate.
The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would enable the appropriate Secretary of State to establish a special planning board for any national park wholly within the area of one of the new counties. What the hon. Gentleman seeks is an independent board. It is Government policy, supported now by the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association, that while retaining the existing planning boards for the Lake District and the Peak District, the administration of national parks can be effectively secured inside the local government structure.
In these Amendments, we have inserted a reserve power to set up joint planning boards in multi-county parks. To that extent we have not shut the door on this. It may well be that in years to come we shall see that we develop along those lines. But for the moment it is our policy to bring them within the local government structure and, I think, give them strength from the counties in this.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As the Minister has reserved the power to establish boards in the case of multi-county parks, cannot he go that little step further and reserve the power also in the case of single-county parks?

Mr. Page: It was a decision not to go as far as that. But the hon. Gentleman is always very persuasive and as I did not shut the door on one I will not do so on the other. But we thought out this policy carefully and it was supported by the two bodies concerned, the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association.
Apart from the Peak Park and the Lake District, each national park will be administered by this single executive committee, the new National Park Committee. In relation to each park, there will be a requirement for the appointment of a national park officer and for the preparation of a national park plan.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the financial arrangements. As I said, I cannot as yet give details of these, but there will be improved financial arrangements under which the Government will bear the lion's share of the expenditure of national park authorities. These will be introduced in the legislation on local

government finance, which the hon. Gentleman said he hoped—as I do—would be introduced during the next Session of Parliament.
11.15 p.m.
I tried to make it clear that we envisage that the national park officer should be of sufficiently senior status to be able to advise his committee, to be able to conduct negotiations with his committee, to be on the same footing as the chief planning officer and other chief officers of the county and of the districts within the national park. It will be he who has to prepare the national park management plan and advise his committee thereon. I do not think that he need necessarily be a planner. He may come from other disciplines than the planning discipline. We are looking more for good managers, but experienced men of high calibre. I am sure that there are many who can serve well in that position. We shall ensure that the national park officer has as much independence as possible in his advice and that he is a senior officer.
We have carefully considered the question of district representation on the committees and the representations which have been made to us by the district councils. We have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view that there should be those on these committees who know the district, but on balance we think that the better course is to continue the arrangements under which two-thirds of the members of those authorities are appointed by the constituent counties, relying—as we have in the past—on the counties exercising their duties responsibly and having due regard to the local interests in making those appointments.
At present, about one-third of all locally appointed members of national park authorities in England are district councillors. In the case of Dartmoor it is a higher percentage than that, because five of the 12 locally appointed members are district councillors. There are similar figures for most of the present committees. District councillors have been well represented in the past, and I see no reason why there should not be a large proportion of them on the committees in the future without our laying this down by Statute.
I stress that the new paragraphs to Schedule 17 require each national park board and committee to prepare and publish within three years a national park plan formulating its policy for the management of the park and for the exercise of the functions as respect the park. This is new. This is something which I hope will meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), who spoke of the fabric of life of the parks. I am sure that the national park committees and the Countryside Commission are fully aware of these problems in the parks. It may well be that, unless there is a firm plan for management of the parks, they will be swamped by those who are not natives of the parks but who merely visit them at certain times of the year. We all enjoy that type of holiday within the parks, and I hope that no one will ever stop us from doing so, but there is a great difference between taking our holi-holidays in the parks and living and working there.
The national park plan which has now to be prepared by each park within the next three years will take account of that and will give us some ideas for solving the problem.

Mr. David Clark: Will the Minister comment on the powers of precept that the Peak Park has at the moment? Does he imagine that the power of precept will be taken away?

Mr. Page: I would rather leave that until I can put a scheme before the House. I hope that it will be a little better than mere precept as it has been in the past.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 16

FUNCTIONS UNDER, AND AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS OF, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1097, in page 263, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we shall also take Government Amendments Nos. 1098, 1099, 1100 and 1101.

Mr. Page: The first group of four Amendments relates to the requirement for a district planning authority which

has prepared a local plan to obtain a certificate that it conforms generally with the county's structure plan. We have had to set out here in some detail the arrangements for obtaining a certificate.
Amendment No. 1097 is merely a paving Amendment. Amendment No. 1098 provides that a district planning authority shall not make a local plan available for inspection until it has obtained a certificate that it conforms generally with the structure plan. I now agree with those with whom I disagreed in Committee. We should not have a question mark hanging over the matter about whether the plan conforms when it is put before the public. I remember arguing in Committee that the district should be allowed to go ahead with its plan and to put it before the public without having a certificate. I now believe that it should obtain a certificate first.
Amendment No. 1100 inserts three new subsections into Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which deals with the procedure for the adoption and approval of local plans. The new subsection (5) contains a provision requiring a district planning authority to request a certificate of general conformity from the county planning authority and it also introduces some new features. First, it provides for a time limit within which the county shall consider the request and, if satisfied as to conformity, issue a certificate accordingly. The period is to be as short as one month so there is a due sense of urgency. But if the county and the district agree the period could be extended.
The Clause also provides for reference to the Secretary of State when the county is not satisfied that the plan conforms. The reference is limited in its scope, being tied to those respects in which the county is not satisfied as to conformity. I accept that if there is a dispute in which the county and the district cannot come together there should be a means for resolving the matter or there could be a deadlock. Again to avoid delay the county must bring the matter before the Secretary of State for his decision within the time limit given of one month.
The new subsection (6) provides that if a county fails to issue a certificate without referring the matter to the Secretary


of State or if the county is unable to come to a decision then the Secretary of State may direct that the question of conformity be directed to him. There then follows a procedure for issuing a certificate where the Secretary of State has become involved. He could either issue a certificate himself, direct the county to do so, or direct a district to change the plan to secure conformity and to apply for a fresh certificate.
Amendment No. 1100 as a whole deals only with the exceptional circumstances. Where the constructive partnership between county and district planning authorities, which I am sure the House hopes will result from this procedure, does not come about, the local authorities can bring the matter before the Secretary of State. I hope that will be exceptional.
I hope that the procedure which we have laid down will bring the two together, and that the issue of a certificate, when it comes to the point of a request from the district, will be a mere formality. There should be co-operation long before that between the two. The county should know perfectly well what the district is doing, so that when the district applies for a certificate it will be a pure formality.
Amendment No. 1101 is purely a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Awdry: I have never been very happy about the provisions of the Bill relating to planning functions, but we need not go into that matter again now. Amendment No. 1100 is an improvement, and will be very much welcomed by the County Councils Association, with one reservation about the time factor. Under the Amendment the county planning authorities will have only one month to decide whether the district local plan conforms to the structural plan. In normal cases I imagine that that would be enough, but there will be some cases where detailed discussions are necessary and more time is required. My right hon. Friend the Minister says that the time can be extended by agreement between the districts and the county, but if the districts do not agree to extend the time the counties will be in a difficulty. I agree that the matter should be dealt with with some urgency, but the Association feels that one month is not enough.

Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the period to three months, perhaps at another stage of the consideration of the Bill?

Mr. Page: I wanted to give the impression of the urgency of the matter. I believe that long before the request is made the county will be fully aware of the contents of the local plan. If the country has good reason for not giving a certificate within that period, and the district refuses to agree to an extension of time, as a result of which the matter comes before the Secretary of State on an wholly unreasonable refusal by the district to agree to an extension of time, I am sure that the Secretary of State will know how to deal with the matter. I am sure that he would not give countenance to a district which had been wholly unreasonable. We must make it clear that the procedure is one that must be undertaken rapidly so that the examination of the plan by the public is not held up. I do not want the plan lingering on the desk of the county planning officer month after month while the public, who will already know something about its contents, are concerned about its effect on individual properties and upon that area of the town. We must move rapidly to the point of putting the matter before the public when there have obviously been rumours of what the plan contains.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:  No. 1098, in page 264, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
'(3) For section 12(2) there shall be substituted the following subsection: —
(2) When a local planning authority have prepared a local plan and the Secretary of State has approved the structure plan so far as it applies to the area of that local plan and, in a case where the local planning authority are required to obtain a certificate under section 14 of this Act, they have obtained that certificate, they shall before adopting the local plan or submitting it for approval under that section make copies of it available for inspection at their office and at such other places as may be prescribed and send a copy to the Secretary of State and to the district or county planning authority, as the case may require; and each copy made available for inspection shall be accompanied by a statement of the time within which objections to the local plan may be made to the local planning authority" '.

No. 1099, in page 264, line 9, at beginning insert—
'(1) In section 14(2), after the word "conforms", there shall be inserted the words "and, in the case of a local plan prepared by a district planning authority, a certificate is issued under subsection (5)or (7) of this section that it conforms".
(2)'.

No. 1100, in page 264, line 12, at end insert—
'(3) In section 14, at the end there shall be added the following subsections: —
(5) Where a district planning authority have prepared a local plan for any part of their area the structure plan for which has been approved by the Secretary of State, they shall request the county planning authority to certify that the local plan conforms generally to the structure plan and, subject to subsection (6) below, the county planning authority shall, within the period of one month from their receipt of the request or such longer period as may be agreed between them and the district planning authority, consider the matter and. if satisfied that the local plan does so conform, issue a certificate to the effect; and if it appears to the county planning authority that the local plan does not so conform in any respect, they shall, during or as soon as practicable after the end of that period, refer the question whether it so conforms in that respect to the Secretary of State to be determined by him.
(6) The Secretary of State may in any case by direction to a county planning authority reserve for his own determination the question whether a local plan conforms generally to a structure plan.
(7) Where on determining a question referred to or reserved for him under subsection (5) or (6) of this section the Secretary of State is of opinion that a local plan conforms generally to the relevant structure plan in the relevant respect or, as the case may be, all respects he may issue, or direct the county planning authority to issue, a certificate to that effect, and where he is of the contrary opinion, he may direct the district planning authority to revise the local plan in such respects as he thinks appropriate as as to secure that it will so conform and thereupon those subsections and the preceding provisions of this subsection shall apply to the revised plan"'—[Mr. Graham Page.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1104, in page 264, line 24, at end insert—

'Joint plans

7A.—(1) The following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where two or more county planning authorities prepare a structure plan jointly.
(2) The county planning authorities shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—

(a) that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to any of the authorities are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so;
(b) that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations.
(3) Section 8(1)(b) and (c) shall not apply in relation to a joint structure plan and references in section 8 to subsection (1) of that section and the purposes of paragraphs (a) to (c) thereof shall include references respectively to sub-paragraph (2) above and the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof.
(4) Each of the county planning authorities by whom a joint structure plan has been prepared shall have the duty imposed by section 8(2) of making copies of the plan available for inspection.
7B.—(1) Where a structure plan has been prepared jointly, the power of making proposals under section 10(1) for the alteration, repeal or replacement of the plan may be exercised as respects their respective areas by any of the authorities by whom it was prepared and the Secretary of State may under that section direct any of them to submit such proposals as respects their respective areas.
(2) In relation to the joint submission of such proposals, the reference in section 10(2) to section 8 shall include a reference to paragraph 7A above.
7C.—(1) The following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where two or more local planning authorities prepare a local plan jointly.
(2) The local planning authorities shall take steps as will in their opinion secure—
(a) that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to any of the authorities are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so; and
(b) that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations.
(3) Section 12(1)(b) and (c) shall not apply in relation to joint local plans and references in section 12 to subsection (1) of that section and the purposes of paragraphs (a) to (c) thereof shall include references respectively to sub-paragraph (2) above and the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof.
(4) Each of the local planning authorities by whom a joint local plan has been prepared shall have the duty imposed by section 12(2) of making copies of the plan available for inspection, and objections to the plan may be made to any of those authorities and the statement required by section 12(2) to accompany copies of the plan made available for inspection shall state that objections may be so made.
7D.—(1) It shall fall to each of the local planning authorities by whom a joint local plan was prepared to adopt the plan under section 14(1) and they may do so as respects any part of their area to which the plan relates, but any modifications subject to which it is adopted must be agreed between all those authorities.


(2) Where a structure plan has been jointly prepared by two or more county planning authorities or a local plan has been jointly prepared by two or more district planning authorities, a request for a certificate under section 14(5) that the local plan conforms generally to the structure plan shall be made by each district planning authority to the county planning authority for the area comprising the district planning authority's area and it shall fall to that county planning authority to deal with the request.
7E.—(1) Where a local plan has been prepared jointly, the power of submitting proposals under section 15(1) for the alteration, repeal or replacement of the plan, may be exercised as respects their respective areas by any of the authorities by whom it was prepared and the Secretary of State may under that subsection direct any of them to submit such proposals as respects their respective areas.
(2) In relation to the joint submission of such proposals the reference in section 15(3) (as it has effect outside Greater London) to section 12 shall include a reference to paragraph 7C above.
7F. The date appointed under section 18(4) for the corning into operation of a local plan prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities or for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan in pursuance of proposals so prepared shall be one jointly agreed by those authorities and be specified in their respective resolutions adopting the plan.
7G.—(1) Paragraph 7C(3) and (4) above shall not, and the following provisions of this paragraph shall, apply in Greater London.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 4, the Greater London Council may prepare a local plan for the whole or part of a G.L.C. action area (within the meaning of that paragraph) jointly with a London borough council or the Common Council.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) and (c) of paragraph 12 of that Schedule shall not apply in relation to joint local plans and the reference in sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph to sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph, and the reference in paragraph 14(2) to sub-paragraph (1)(a) to (c) of the said paragraph 12, shall both include a reference to paragraph 7C(2) above.
(4) Where the Greater London Council is one of the local planning authorities by whom a joint local plan has been prepared, that Council shall not be required to take any steps under the said sub-paragraph (2) which can in their opinion be taken, and are taken, by the council of any other local planning authority whose area comprises any part of the area to which the plan relates.
(5) Each of the local planning authorities by whom a joint local plan has been pre pared for any part of Greater London shall have the duty imposed by sub-paragraph (2) of the said paragraph 12 of making copies of the plan available for inspection, and objections to the plan may be made to any of those authorities and the statement required by sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph to

accompany copies of the plan made available for inspection shall state that objections may be so made.
(6) In relation to the joint submission of proposals under section 15(1) for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan the reference in section 15(3) (as it has effect in Greater London) to the said paragraph 12 shall include a reference to paragraph 7C above and the foregoing provisions of this paragraph'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 1105 and 1106.

Mr. Page: Amendment No. 1104 is the substantive Amendment, and the others are consequential.
The Amendment makes specific provision for the preparation of joint local plans and joint structure plans. After reorganisation, although local plans become a function of the district planning authorities, county planning authorities will continue to have responsibility for some of these plans. There must therefore be provision for joint working on local plans between district planning authorities in the same county or in adjoining counties and adjoining districts.
The new paragraphs 7A to 7G relate only to those powers and duties in the plan-making procedures where it is not sufficient for the authorities to arrange between themselves who shall take the statutory action, and where it needs to be laid down explicitly either that action must be taken separately by each of the authorities concerned or that it must be taken by all of them acting together.
These procedural stages relate to publicity, to public participation, the making of objections and, for joint local plans, their adoption and operative date.
11.30 p.m.
The several paragraphs show how these duties shall be carried out when the joint plans are being prepared but, more important, they tell the public to whom to make representations. The public should not be inconvenienced by the fact that there are two or more local authorities drawing up a plan and have to make representations to each one, and so these rules laid down in the paragraphs assist the public, in that representations can be made to one of the authorities concerned
The House will not wish me to go through in detail this procedure; it


speaks for itself when one reads it through. It makes a logical story of the preparation of the joint plans.
If there are any problems which anybody has noticed on them I shall endeavour to deal with them.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Can the Minister explain what effect, if any, the Amendment will have on the South Hampshire structure plan and the type of organisation that exists at the moment?

Mr. Page: It will enable the South Hampshire authorities to submit a plan for the whole area for which they have been preparing a structure plan without giving the Secretary of State a pair of scissors and chopping it up and handing in separate plans. That is the physical side, but it goes further into the merits of the plan that that. It enables joint plans to be prepared, exactly as South Hampshire has been doing informally. It gives them statutory blessing.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 740, in page 264, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 46 on page 265 and insert—

8.—(1) The functions of a local planning authority of determining—
(a) applications for planning permission under Part III;
(b) applications for determining under section 53 whether an application for such permission is required;
(c) applications for an established use certificate under section 94;
shall, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, be exercised by the district planning authority.
(2) The functions of a local planning authority of determining any such application as aforesaid which appears to the district planning authority to relate to a county matter shall be exercised by the county planning authority unless the application relates to a county matter mentioned in paragraph 17(1)(d) below and the district planning authority propose—
(a) to refuse planning permission;
(b) to determine that an application for planning permission is required; or
(c) to refuse an application for an established use certificate as respects the whole of the land to which the application relates.

(3) Every application mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be made to the district planning authority, and in the case of an application for planning permission that authority shall send a copy of the application as soon as may be after they have received it to the county planning authority and also to the local highway authority, if not a local

planning authority, except in any case or class of case with respect to which the county planning authority or the local highway authority, as the case may be, otherwise direct.
(4) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to applications relating to land in a National Park, but paragraph 8A below shall apply to such applications instead.
8A.—(1) Each of the following applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, that is to say—

(a) applications for planning permission;
(b) applications for determining under section 53 whether an application for such permission is required;
(c) applications for listed building consent under section 55;
(d) applications for consent to the display of advertisements under section 63; and
(e) applications for an established use certificate under section 94;

shall, if relating to land in a National Park, be made to the district planning authority who shall, unless it falls to be determined by them, send it on to the county planning authority and, in the case of an application for planning permission, shall send a copy to the local highway authority, except where the local highway authority are a local planning authority and except in any case or class of case with respect to which the local highway authority otherwise direct.

(2) Where any such application relating to land in a National Park or an application so relating for approval of a matter received under an outline planning permission within the meaning of section 42 falls to be determined by a county planning authority, that authority shall before determining it consult with the district planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated.

8B. The Secretary of State shall include in a development order under section 24 provision enabling a local highway authority to impose restrictions on the grant by the local planning authority of planning permission for the following descriptions of development relating to land in the area of the local highway authority, that is to say—

(a) the formation, laying out or alteration of any means of access to a road classified under section 27 of the Local Government Act 1966 or to a proposed road the route of which has been adopted by resolution of the local highway authority and notified as such to the local planning authority;
(b) any other operations or use of land which appear to the local highway authority to be likely to result in a material increase in the volume of traffic entering or leaving such a classified or proposed road, to prejudice the improvement or construction of such a road or to result in a material change in the character of traffic entering, leaving or using such a road.

>8C. The provisions which may be contained in any such order shall include provision—
(a) requiring a county planning authority who are determining any application mentioned in paragraph 8 above and relating to a county matter, or an application for


approval of a matter reserved under an outline planning permission within the meaning of section 42 and so relating, to afford the district planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated an opportunity to make recommendations to the county planning authority as to the manner in which the application shall be determined, and to take into account any such recommendations;
(b) requiring a county or district planning authority who have received any application so mentioned or any application for such approval (including any such application relating to land in a National Park) to notify the district or county planning authority, as the case may be, of the terms of their decision, or, where the application is referred to the Secretary of State, the date when it was so referred and, when notified to them, the terms of his decision.

8D. Except in the case of any description of operations or use of land specified in an order made by the Secretary of State, the county planning authority for any area may give directions to the district planning authority for any part of that area as to how the district planning authority are to determine any application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in any case where it appears to the county planning authority that any proposals in the application would substantially and adversely affect their interests as local planning authority.

8E.—

(1) Where a district planning authority have been notified in writing by the council of a parish or community wholly or partly situated in the area of that authority that the council wish to be informed of every application for planning permission relating to land in the parish or community or of every application so relating for approval of a matter reserved under an outline planning permission within the meaning of section 42, or of any description of such applications, and receive any such application or, as the case may be, an application of any such description, they shall inform the council in writing of the application, indicating the nature of the development to which the application relates and identifying the land to which it relates

.

(2) The provisions which may be contained in a development order under section 24 shall include provision requiring—
(a) a local planning authority, who are determining any application of which the council of a parish or community are entitled to be informed, to afford that council an opportunity to make representations to the local planning authority as to the manner in which the application should be determined and to take into account any such representations;
(b) the district planning authority to notify that council of the terms of their or the county planning authority's decision on any such application or, where the application is referred to the Secretary of State, the date when it was so referred and, when notified to them, the terms of his decision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Government Amendment No. 748.

Mr. Page: This Amendment replaces the existing paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 by new paragraphs. Paragraph 8 allocates responsibilities for dealing with applications for planning permission, applications for determining whether planning permission is required for a particular proposal, and applications for established use certificates. It also deals with some aspects of the relationship between planning authorities in respect of such matters.
Hon. and right hon. Members who read paragraph 8 as originally printed were probably as confused as I was. I thought that I had got it right in first approving the draft and then, when I read it again, it seemed almost double Dutch. I think that we have it right now. The new series of paragraphs begins logically with the provisions allocating to district planning authorities the responsibility of dealing with most applications.
We are talking about the ordinary applications for planning permission and the scheme of things in this Schedule is that they should be sent first and foremost to the district. All applications for planning permission will go to the district planning authority and it is for it to sort out those which should be county matters. Those are set out in paragraph 17 of the Schedule as being of three different types relating to minerals—applications for winning and working of mineral deposits, for search and tests for mineral deposits and for disposal of mineral wastes. They are matters reserved to the county. Then the districts should forward them to the county for decision. The districts should also forward to the county any application which is in conflict with the development plans, either with the structure plan or a local plan prepared by the county, unless the district is to deal with it without prejudicing that plan in any way.
Sub-paragraph 8(3) provides machinery for the making of applications and dealing with them. Every application is required to be made to the district planning authority. In the case of applications for planning permission that authority is then required to send a copy of the application both to the county planning authority and to the local highway authority, if it is a


different authority except, in either instance, in any case or class of case with respect to which the authority otherwise directs. It is possible for the county planning authority to say it does not want to receive certain types of application. This will be a useful provision. We shall be issuing guidance on this and I am sure there will be a number of types of planning application which the district can deal with at once without sending copies to the county. This is a matter between the county and district based on such advice as we can give them in working out the scheme.
Paragraph 8A contains the provisions for dealing with applications relating to land in a national park, which we have already discussed, which differ from those relating to land elsewhere because all the functions of a local planning authority are vested in the county planning authority. It sets out what shall happen to applications relating to national parks. The term "county planning authority" in relation to the exercise of functions in national parks in practice includes a national parks committee—or it is the national parks committee—because the committee gets all its planning functions from the county of which it is a committee.
Paragraph 8B deals with the interests of local highway authorities and this is where I hope we have made the scheme much more intelligible than it was in the original Bill. It now provides for the Secretary of State to make provision in subordinate legislation enabling a local highway authority to give directions restricting the grant of permission in any case where an application for planning permission relates to development affecting a classified road or proposed new road. That provision about the specific distance of 220 feet, which caused so much concern when the Bill was first printed is now removed from the Clause.
The local highway authority may direct that there be restrictions placed on the grant of permission in any case where development involves either the formation, laying out or alteration of means of access to a classified road or proposed new road or any other operations or use which will in its opinion be likely to result in a material increase in traffic using an access to such a road or to

prejudice the improvement of such a road or to result in a material change in the character of traffic entering, leaving of using the road.
Paragraph 8C deals with the relationship between a county planning authority and district planning authority, on which the Secretary of State can make certain orders.
Let me turn to paragraph 8E which, I am sure, the House will deem of some considerable importance if my mail is anything to judge it by. I recollect getting about 400 to 500 letters concerning the desire by parish councils to receive notice of planning applications. We have provided for it here, in paragraph8E—that where a parish council, or, in Wales, a community council, has previously in writing notified the district planning authority that it wishes to receive notification of an application for planning permission, or approval of a reserved matter, or of any class of application, it shall be the duty of the district planning authority to notify the parish or community council of any such application, and to indicate to the parish or community council the nature of the proposed development of the land to which the application relates. Of course, it is no good merely notifying the parish council, unless it is given a chance to make representations.
At the same time we are very anxious that statutory planning applications and decisions on them should not be unduly delayed. Perhaps I receive more complaints about delays by local authorities in making planning decisions than about any other part of the planning system. I do not want to delay them more than absolutely necessary, but, of course, if we are to insist that the local planning authority notifies the parishes, we must give time for the parishes to make representations. We put in the figure of 14 days. I think that will be the right balance between getting on with the job and giving a chance to the parish or community council to react.
These provisions will not come into operation till 1st April, 1974. We gave very serious consideration to bringing them in before that, but I think that, the rules having been laid down, the local authorities, seeing that they will be statutory rules, will get together in voluntary agreements and decide to operate this


system of notice to the parishes. Indeed, many local planning authorities do it already, and I am sure that we shall find that there are voluntary arrangements in operation over almost all the country by the time this provision is embodied in the Statute.

Sir Robin Turton: I should like to say how pleased I am that my right hon. Friend has put in paragraph 8E, bringing in the parishes. At the same time I am a little disappointed that he has made it an opting-in provision. I understood that the arrangements were to be for opting out. We must accept this position, that they have to opt in, but I ask my right hon. Friend what notification he intends to give to parish and community councils about their powers under this Schedule. Will he draw their attention to the need for them, if they so desire, to opt in, either in whole or in part, as laid down here?
There is one other question I should like to ask my right hon. Friend. This Schedule is dealing with the problem generally. What is to happen in the national parks? Are parish councils in the national parks to have the same powers as those parish councils in areas outside the national parks? Usually, the parish councils in the national parks are more alive to the amenities of their localities than are those in areas outside the national parks.
I am a little worried about the 14 days. Presumably there will be a certain amount of time allowed in which the district planning authority will notify the selected parish councils and the 14 days will run after the notification? Perhaps in another place my right hon. Friend will consider enlarging the 14 days to 21, bearing in mind that in rural areas it is not easy to convene a parish council and to get the matter considered in such a short time as 14 days. Prior notice has to be given of a meeting of a parish council, and there is a certain amount of delay in notification.
I have found this a tremendous problem in my constituency. So many planning mistakes have been made by the failure to notify parish councils. Many years ago, a row of new houses was built in a place called Miry Hole. If the parish council had known about it before the planning permission was granted, those

houses would not have been built. As it is, they were built. For some time, I had to deal with the problems arising from the fact that each of the garages had three feet of water in it for most of the winter months. A great many mistakes have been made, and I know that that is a story which other hon. Members can duplicate.
The local man knows the needs of his locality. The more that we can encourage our parish councils to take an active part in the consideration of planning applications, the more democracy will function as we all wish.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I wish to remind my right hon. Friend of a point that I raised in Committee. When an application, for whatever reason, is sent from a district council to the county council for consideration, what machinery is there to ensure that the person making the planning application is informed that the decision has been transferred from the district to the county? In the exercise of their democratic rights, those who apply for planning permissions naturally try to keep in touch with the council concerned with the decisions. If an application is moved, it is important that the applicant knows that it has moved. Can my right hon. Friend tell me about that and, if it is not provided for in this immensely improved procedure, whether that addition might be written into the Bill in another place?

Mr. Leadbitter: I wish to refer to one or two points which still puzzle me about the Minister's decision to improve these provisions. He has referred to paragraph 8E as being a step in the right direction. But does he mean that a parish council or neighbourhood council has to apply to the district council in each and every case of an application for permission, or will this be a once-for-all application to the district that the parish council be informed of all subsequent applications affecting its land? It is important that this be made clear.
The Minister has gone a long way to help us. But I do not understand why it should be necessary for a parish council to ask to be informed about planning decisions. The district council is given powers to deal with applications from its own district. Surely it would be simpler


automatically to inform a parish council of planning applications affecting it. What is more, I feel that it would be much easier to inform the residents of an area affected by an application. Far too often we find that permission is given to an applicant for the use of premises, and it is only after the permission is given that it becomes known to nearby residents, by which time their right to object has been lost to them. I think the Minister will be able to answer that essential part of my submission on paragraph 8E.
Why not, if he has gone this far, go a step further and say that all applications affecting a parish should be made known without the need for an application anyway? If he persists—I think he might have good grounds for so doing, because he has obviously thought deeply about this matter—thatan application is required, will he answer my first point and say whether it is a once for all application or whether the parish council has to apply in every case? If it is the latter, how would a parish council be aware of the need to make an application to the district planning authority?
I now turn to paragraph 8(3). My interpretation of sub-paragraph (1),
"(a) applications for planning permission under Part III;
(b) applications for determining under section 53 whether an application for such permission is required;
(c) application for an established use certificate under section 94",
is that in all these cases there is a requirement on the district council to send copies to the county planning authority and the highway authority where the highway authority is not a local authority. If this is the intention, to what extent does an application find itself in a timescale which perhaps brings hardship to the applicant and undue delay in dealing with his proposals?
I think the Minister has got the gist of what I am trying to say. Briefly, it means that sub-committees of councils meet once a month, district councils meet once a month to deal with the committee work of that month, and subsequently, I presume, copies of applications go to the county planning authority which meets monthly.
I think that this paragraph should be looked at again. I reserve the right to

withdraw from that position if the Minister can explain it tonight. If copies have to be sent to the county planning authority there is the implication that the county planning authority and the highway authority have power to object. If so, we get into an extreme difficulty. First, the district planning authority would not appear to be master in its own house concerning the permissions we are talking about, and, secondly, we may have the difficulty of objections from the parish councils. Therefore, an application which could normally have been dealt with under the previous procedure would, under this procedure, involve too much of a timescale.
I hope that the Minister can remove my worries about the timescale and will indicate whether the position regarding paragraph 8E is as I have described.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I thank my right hon. Friend for the proposal which he has brought forward. I had only a modest number of representations on this matter. About a dozen parish councils wrote to me, and all the points that they raised in correspondence with me have been covered. I shall have great pleasure in communicating to them the result of this debate.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for Amendment No. 740, and in particular for paragraph 8E. I had the honour of suggesting in a Clause in a Private Member's Bill which I introduced that parish councils should also have the right, if they so desired, to receive notification of planning applications. As I understand paragraph 8E, they only have to ask to receive notification and they will receive details of every planning application from then on. This is another step in the right direction of trying to get public participation in planning.
Too often the public regard planning as a negative matter which stops them from doing things. All those who are concerned in planning applications know of the bitterness which is felt when people genuinely feel that they have had no chance to make any representations on planning applications in their districts which are received by the local planning authority. As there are so many parish


councils, and many parishes do not have councils but have parish meetings, it is reasonable that the onus should be on the parish councils to ask for the information rather than the local planning authorities being obliged, whether the parish councils want it or not, to inform them of the planning applications.
The whole purpose of Amendment No. 740 and paragraph 8E is to make public participation more possible in planning. Surely this is another step towards recognition that the best procedure of informing the public of planning applications, so that they may make representations, is to accept the need for site notices for all planning applications. If that is done, then anyone living in the district can hardly say that they did not know about a planning application if they did not bother to read the notice.
As we want to speed up the decisions on planning applications—in fact, local planning authorities have to give a decision within two months—I suggest that 14 days rather than 21 days is the right period. If my memory serves me correctly, that is generally the number of days that people have to make representations on other matters of planning policy.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree strongly with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). I proposed an Amendment in Committee as a result of which my right hon. Friend made this concession regarding the informing of parish councils of planning applications, and I thank him for having incorporated its provisions at much shorter length. I do not claim the authorship of that Amendment—that was known to my right hon. Friend. It would also be appropriate to congratulate the Parish Councils Association, which has conducted a campaign over a considerable number of years. At last it has achieved its objective regarding the informing of parish councils of planning applications.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) asked what notice parishes would have that they were to have the right to ask for notification of planning applications. We need do nothing about that. The National Association of Parish Councils is so efficient

on this matter, having regard to the correspondence which I have mentioned, that I am sure that it will let every parish know that it has the right. Nevertheless, we shall be sending out guidance on this subject to all local planning authorities.
I was about to say, off the cuff, that the national park committee, being practically the local planning authority, would have to do the same thing as the district planning authorities and give notice to the parishes in the area concerned. However, on running my finger down the Amendment, I cannot find the line which would confirm that, and I will look again at the matter. Obviously the parishes incorporated in the national parks should have the same notice as any other parish.
12 midnight.
I must stick to the short period of 14 days, otherwise complaints of delay in planning applications will mount. Partly for that reason, we adopted the opting-in procedure rather than the opting-out procedure for the parishes. The parish will have to inform the district planning authority how it wishes to receive these notices. After all, a parish council has not necessarily an office open throughout the day. It may be that the clerk to the parish council will wish the notice delivered to his house or to a convenient address where it will reach him quickly, since he is not a full-time officer. We should like parish councils to notify the district planning authority if they want notices and, if so, where notices are to be sent so that they may receive speedy attention.
I was asked what notice a person would receive if the application he has put in to the district planning authority is passed to the county. We propose to put into the revision of the general development order a procedure for notifying an applicant which authority is dealing with the application.

Mr. Madden: Would such notification also apply to those who are opposing the application?

Mr. Page: I do not think that I could provide for that. At that stage in our planning law, the opposer has no real status.
I turn to the question of delay through the sending of notices from the district planning authority to the county planning


authority. When we put this proposition to the local authority associations, I was assured that the mere sending of copies and giving them attention would not delay the process, that the county planning authority could deal with the copies received quite adequately, and that there would be no delay there from. The great advantage of this procedure is that the public will know to whom to send their applications. They will always go to the district planning authority. The public need not worry about whether the county is to deal with it; the application will be to the district.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands worth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) mentioned site notices as being the best way to get the public to participate in planning. We had this in consideration when revising the general development order.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) asked whether the notice from the parish would be a once-for-all notice. The answer is, "Yes, indeed." It might be that between the district planning authority and the parish there will be some arrangement for the annual renewal of the notice but that is a matter for them to arrange. Certainly, it is not an application to be made each week or for each copy of every planning application which comes in. If a parish gives notice it will receive notification of all planning applications or any class of planning applications it mentions until it gives notice to the contrary.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) sincerely for raising this matter in Committee, and I am glad that we have been able to develop it into the position as it now stands.

Mr. Leadbitter: There is just one point which puzzles some of us in view of the right hon. Gentleman's considerable progress in this matter. In reply to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), the right hon. Gentleman said that an opposer has no legal status in this situation. I did not quite understand what he meant because hitherto I am sure many of us have felt that if an opposer had not a legal status, then certainly within the planning regulations he had some rights. Will the right hon. Gentle-

man clarify the point so that it is clear to people outside whether he was referring to the strictly legal aspect or to the rights of opposers?

Mr. Page: The opposer of an application can, of course, make his views known to his local councillor or by writing to the council, but if the application is granted, an opposer has no right of appeal against the grant of an application. That is what I meant by saying that an opposer has no real status or standing.

Dame Irene Ward: As a rule I find myself in great agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister but I was horrified democratically when he suddenly said that the opposer has no rights. I simply do not understand that.
I must register here and now that I never heard in Great Britain that the opposer has no rights and no rights of appeal. If my right hon. Friend seems to think that that situation is all right, I will not argue with him now, but it is about time that it was put on our parliamentary record democratically that people who oppose, providing that they are doing it constitutionally and legitimately, have just as much "right as the applicant. I should hate to think that all the years I have been in the Houte of Commons I have not had the right to oppose. If that is a fact, I shall now start getting up more quickly to oppose than ever before. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear this in mind but if he feels that this is so, I cannot argue about it now, but I find myself curiously in agreement with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter). That is surprising. We are democratically elected and we feel that we have always a right to oppose.
I do not want to stimulate my right hon. Friend, but may I have an assurance from him that when the Bill gets to the august second Chamber, which I hope perhaps has the same kind of feeling about the rights of people to oppose, he will see to it that they examine this point? I should hate to think I have to go on arguing it year after year until I see that in this democratically elected Parliament we have the right to oppose. If there were no opposition we might not be sitting here as Government of the day—and our being


the Government is a jolly good thing. Let us not say that people have no right to oppose. I should contest that view all along the line.

Mr. Page: With the permission of the House, may I say that my hon. Friend always stimulates me, and has stimulated the House with her stimulating speech tonight. But I said—and my hon. Friend has proved my case—that an opposer has no legal right or statutory right to oppose. That does not mean that he cannot oppose. My hon. Friend opposes without any statutory right, and does so very efficiently. Anyone can do that. It needs no change of law—

Dame Irene Ward: That is no answer.

Mr. Page: I hope that my hon. Friend will take my answer home and think about it. It is an answer.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move Amendment No. 1167, in page 265, line 46, at end insert—
'(8) The Secretary of State shall include in a development order under section 24 provision enabling a county planning authority to impose restrictions on the grant by a district planning authority of planning permission for development relating to land within a conservation area'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 741 and 743 and also the following Amendments:

No. 1026, in page 266, line 21, leave out
'section 58 (building preservation notices)'.

No. 1027, in page 266, line 23, after 'that', insert '(a)'.

No. 1028, in page 266, line 26, at end insert—
';and (b) a district planning authority, subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, shall not grant listed building consent unless they have been authorised or directed to do so by the county planning authority.
(2) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 11 shall apply to all applications for listed building consent as though the district planning authority were a London borough council and the county planning authority were the Greater London Council.
(3) The Secretary of State may give directions that, in the use of such district planning authorities as he may specify, paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 shall apply to applications for

listed building consent; and accordingly so long as the directions are in force district planning authorities may determine such applications in such manner as they think fit without notifying the county planning authority'.

No. 1029, in page 266, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 1030, in page 266, line 43, after 'land)', insert—
'section 58 (building preservation notices), sections'.

No. 1031, in page 269, line 2, leave out 'and not' and insert 'but'.

No. 1032, in page 269, line 2, after 'authorities', insert—
'shall have the power to make determinations under this section and to designate such areas'.

No. 1033, in page 269, line 9, at end insert—
'and a county planning authority shall consult with the council or councils of the district or districts of which any part is included in the area to which the proposed determination relates'.

Mr. Cormack: At this late hour I do not propose to make a long speech, particularly as we had ample opportunity to discuss this matter in Committee. Nevertheless, the debates in Committee—and the Amendments which we were then discussing are now down in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker)—produced a very interesting, helpful and encouraging reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development and yet we have not seen a great deal since. Our essential concern remains exactly the same as it was then, namely, for some of the greatest assets in this country which are contained in our conservation areas. They are not merely local assets. We are talking of things of national and international worth and importance, and great beauty.
The question of who should control these conservation areas, who should determine where they are and how they should be organised is of prime importance. I am not attacking the district councils or the idea that the districts should have a great degree of control in conservation areas, but I am extremely unhappy that they should have absolute power. When there is a conflict between the conservationist and the developer, the developer, with the big battalions, and particularly the big financial battalions, nearly always comes out on top. There


is the very difficult potential dilemma of the district council, when confronted with a conflict between rateable values and conservation, perhaps being understandably pulled in the wrong direction.
Among the counties there is an enormous accumulation of expertise in dealing with problems of conservation and, although this is true to a great extent in many of what will be the new districts, like Norwich and Winchester, many district councils will not have this expertise to call upon and it is vital that they should have it in such a frightening transition period.
All we are asking for in the Amendment is for some sort of statutory partnership. My right hon. Friend, when he replied in Committee, seemed alive to the need for this and gave an extremely helpful answer. He indicated that the designation of conservation areas was a local matter and that it should be in the control of the district planning authority. However, he went on to say that the Government were anxious to introduce the expertise and skill to which he had referred when talking of listed buildings. He pointed out that the same sort of expertise applied in selecting and designating conservation areas. He said:
…conservation areas are not merely areas of great beauty but also areas of traditional and historical interest".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29th February, 1972; c. 1986.]
At that stage, and understandably, the Government had no proposals to make and the Bill was left as drafted, with conservation area powers at district level. But my right hon. Friend said at column 1988 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings on 29th February that it might be right to consider this issue in the context of the Government's own solution for listed buildings. He went on to say in column 1993 that he was not convinced that the right solution for conservation areas had been found and that he would look at the problem again. He did not wish to say too much at that stage because it would involve further consultations with the local authority associations in particular.
12.15 a.m.
I understand from the County Councils Association—and one would have thought that that is one body which might have been consulted with considerable care—

that there have been no meaningful consultations since the debate on 29th February. That is disappointing. I can understand the enormous pressure under which my right hon. Friend has had to work in the intervening period, and I am not suggesting that we expect a definitive answer this evening, but what I am very much hoping for is a reply that will indicate that my right hon. Friend has not changed his mind between February and July and that he will at least promise that between now and the Bill being considered in another place something will be done to meet the points which he accepted only five or six months ago.

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend said that he was not in this Amendment attacking the districts, but the effect of his Amendment would be to give county planning authorities the right of veto over any decision by a district planning authority to grant planning permission for development relating to land within a conservation area. To that extent he would be taking away the powers given in planning matters to district planning authorities. The function of dealing with development proposals has been allocated by the Bill primarily to district planning authorities. The Amendment would severely limit their discretion in exercising that function in respect of the development within a conservation area.
The designation of a conservation area will be a function of the district planning authorities. They will have the responsibility of deciding which areas are of special archaeological or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to enhance or preserve. I cannot think of anything more suitable for a district to decide than where it shall have its conservation areas. I have always said that the powers which we are giving to district councils are those which will make up the character of the district, and indeed the character of the district will depend a lot upon whether it has conservation areas, and where it has them. As the district planning authorities will have control over the designation of these areas, it would not be right to limit their power to control development within those areas.
Furthermore, this would be counter-productive, as district planning authorities would hardly be likely to designate


an area as a conservation area if they knew that this would result, in so far as land in the area was concerned, in a limitation being placed upon their normal powers in relation to development control. I must resist the Amendment and hope that the House will reject it.
The Amendment deals only with the question of conservation areas. As the other Amendments in the group have not been referred to, I must leave them. I do not wish to detain the House by referring to something which has not been raised by the hon. Member who put them down.
May I pass quickly to Amendment No. 741? This is merely the deletion of something superfluous in the drafting. Amendment No. 743 has been tabled because I regret to say that when we drafted paragraph 14 of the Schedule we forgot London. We are trying to remedy that by the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made:  No. 741, in page 266, line 23, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 26.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 742, in page 266, line 52, leave out from '62' to 'shall' in page 267, line 1, and insert—
'or serving, or appearing on an appeal relating to, a notice under section 103'.
The Amendment corrects an error of drafting in paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 16.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:  No. 743, in page 267, line 7, leave out 'district council' and insert—
'borough or district council and, outside Greater London, with'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 744, in page 268, line 19, leave out '171, 172, 173 and 176' and insert—
'170, 171, 172, 173, 176 and 177'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 745 and 746.

Mr. Graham Page: The position here is that paragraph 18 makes provision as to the authority to which claims are to

be made in respect of compensation arising from the exercise of certain functions by local planning authorities, including the making of orders revoking or modifying grants of planning permission, the serving of building preservation notices and the making of directions under article 4 of the general development order.
The addition of Sections 170 and 177 of the 1971 Act by this Amendment extends the provision of claims for compensation arising from orders under Section 51 of the Act requiring the discontinuance of existing use or the removal or alteration of buildings and claims arising from stop notices. The intention is to add provisions concerning the payment of compensation to the provisions of this paragraph.
Amendment No. 745 merely corrects a drafting fault in paragraph 18(1) of the Schedule.
Amendment No. 746 has rather more substance. It defines the "appropriate authority" to which claims for compensation should be made arising out of orders made or notices served by the Secretary of State. In respect of claims for compensation for revocation or modification of planning permission or for refusal of permission following an article 4 direction, or for revocation or modification of listed building consent, the claim must be made against the local planning authority which granted the permission or consent which is revoked or modified.
In respect of claims for loss or damage caused by service of building preservation notices and compensation for restrictions on advertising, the claim is made to the district planning authority. In respect of claims for compensation arising from discontinuance orders and loss due to stop notices, the claim is made to the local planning authority which in the opinion of the Secretary of State should have made the discontinuance order or served the stop notice which the Secretary of State made or served himself.
I always feel that in these claims for compensation the Secretary of State is in a rather difficult position, because he decides that something is wrong when a planning permission has to be modified or varied. It is not central Government which pays the compensation for the


Secretary of State's act but the ratepayer, the local planning authority. However, it is considered that the local planning authority made the mistake, and the ratepayers have to pay. It is always a difficult decision for the Secretary of State to make, when he knows that by making a revocation order he is, as it were, making the local council pay for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:  No. 745, in page 268, after 'him', insert—
'or, in the case of an order made or notice served by him by virtue of section 276 (default powers) the appropriate authority'.

No. 746, in page 268, line 26, at end insert—
(1A) In this paragraph 'appropriate authority' means—
(a) in the case of a claim for compensation under section 164, 165 or 172, the local planning authority who granted, or are to be treated for the purposes of section 164 as having granted, the planning permission or listed building consent the revocation or modification of which gave rise to the claim;
(b) in the case of a claim for compensation under section 173 or 176, the district planning authority;
(c) in the case of a claim for compensation under section 170 or 177, the local planning authority who in the opinion of the Secretary of State should have made the order under section 51 or served the stop notice which he made or served by virtue of section 276 and which, or the cesser of which, gave rise to the claim.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 747, in page 268, line 46, at end insert—

Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway

20A.—(1) Section 212 (changing highways for vehicles into footpaths or bridleways) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (2) for the words from 'made' to 'different)' there shall be substituted the words 'by a local planning authority who have so resolved made after consultation with the highway authority (if different) and any other authority who are a local planning authority for the area in question'.
(3) In subsection (3) after 'consultation with' there shall be inserted the words 'every authority who are a local planning authority for the area in question and'.
(4) In subsections (5) and (6) after the words 'local planning authority' there shall be

inserted the words 'on whose application the order was made'.
(5) In subsection (8) for the words from 'made' to 'different)' there shall be substituted the words ' by any authority who are a local planning authority for the area in question made after consultation with the highway authority (if different) and any other authority who are a local planning authority for that area'.
20B. In section 213(5) (requirement for competent authority to obtain consent from certain other authorities before carrying out and maintaining amenity works on highways reserved to pedestrians) for the words from 'have' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words' consulted the highway authority (if different) and any authority (other than themselves) who are a local planning authority for the area in question'.

The Amendment deals with two separate matters under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, one under Section 212, which deals with changing highways for vehicles into footpaths or bridleways, and one under Section 213, which deals with the requirement for a competent authority to obtain the consent of certain other authorities before carrying out and maintaining maintenance works on highways reserved for pedestrians. These provisions are reserved at present because of the increasing pedestrianisation of highways.

Local planning authorities which have adopted by resolution a proposal for improving the management of part of their area can apply, after consultation with the highway authority, to the Secretary of State for an order providing for the extinguishment of the right of way for vehicles on a highway in that area. Local planning authorities for this purpose are county councils and county borough councils, but it is desirable that, as a part of their responsibility for matters of close local interest, district councils should also be able to exercise this power. It is necessary, however, that county councils should retain the power because they will be the highway authorities. We are giving a concurrent power under both Sections to the county and the districts.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:  No. 1101, in page 269, line 13, leave out paragraph 24 and insert—
'24. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 4, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972, for the words "11 and 12" there shall be substituted the words "10C, 11, 12 and 14(5) to (7)'

No. 748, in page 269, line 26, leave out '8(2)' and insert '8 or 8A'.

No. 1105, in page 269, line 43, at end insert '7C to 7G'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 179

DISCHARG OF FUNCTIONS OF PLANNING AUTHORITIES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1102, in page 116, line 3, leave out '10A' and insert '10C.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may discuss also Government Amendments Nos. 735, 736, 737, 1176, and 1103.

Mr. Graham Page: Amendments Nos. 1102 and 1176 are technical and consequential Amendments. Amendments Nos. 735 and 737 provide for the allocation of the functions of preparing local plans between county planning authorities and district planning authorities. Their purpose is to make clear that the formal responsibility for exercising all the functions under Sections 11 to 15 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, in respect of any one local plan rests on one authority only.
This is exceptional in the Bill. Normally if one authority carries out the function of another as allocated in the Bill, the responsibility remains with the first authority and the second acts only as agent. As Amendment No. 735 shows, we have made an exception in this case.
A development plan scheme might have designated more than one authority responsible for the different stages of working that plan had we not tabled the Amendment; for example, one authority might have prepared the plan and another held an inquiry into the objections. We could not allow that to happen.
Amendment No. 737 achieves the same effect as Amendment No. 735 in relation to the allocation of local plan functions in a structure plan.
The effect of Amendment No. 736 is simply to require the county planning authority to send a copy of the development plan scheme to the Secretary of State, merely to inform the Secretary of State who is responsible for drawing the

local plan, not to obtain his approval of that scheme. It is only if the two do not agree that it comes before the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 1103 includes the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations coming into operation before 1st April, 1974. This is a normal regulation power to make regulations before the full Statute comes into effect.

Amendment agreed to.

12.30 a.m.

Amendments made:  No. 735, in page 116, line 13, leave out from 'plans' to end of line 23 and insert—
'for those areas in the county in which sections 11 to 15 of this Act are in force, except any part of the county included in a National Park, and—
(a) the scheme shall designate the local planning authority or authorities (whether county or district) by whom local plans are to be prepared for any such area and provide for the exercise of all functions of a local planning authority under those sections in relation to any such plan exclusively by the authority designated in relation to that plan; and'—

No. 736, in page 116, line 42, at end insert—
(3A) As soon as practicable after making or amending a development plan scheme the county planning authority shall send a copy of the scheme or the scheme as amended, as the case may be, to the Secretary of State—
No. 737, in page 116, line 46, leave out from beginning to 'and' on page 117, line 2, and insert—
'preparation of local plans exclusively by the county planning authority and, where it so provides, shall also provide for the exercise exclusively by that authority of all other functions of a local planning authority under sections 11 to 15 of this Act'—

No. 1176, in page 117, line 29 [Clause 179], leave out '10A' and insert '10C'.

No. 1103, in page 117, line 32, leave out from 'may' to end of line 33 and insert—
'before that date exercise his power of giving directions under subsection (5), and of making regulations under subsection (7), of that section'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 180

NATIONAL PARK OF CONTRYSIDE FUNCTION

Amendment made:  No. 738, in page 118, line 11, leave out 'local' and insert 'county'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 17

FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NATIONAL PARK AND THE CONTRYSIDE

Amendments made:  No. 749, in page 270, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 49 on page 271 and insert:

Planning Boards and National Park Committees

1. If immediately before the 1st April 1974 there is an existing joint planning board constituted by an order under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for a National Park comprised in two or more existing counties and as from that date the Park will be comprised in two or more new counties, the Secretary of State shall make an order reconstituting the existing board for discharging the functions to which this Part of this Schedule applies and Schedule 1 to that Act shall apply to a joint board so reconstituted and the order reconstituting it as it applies to a joint board constituted under that section and the order constituting it and shall so apply as if the area of the Park were a united district.
2. An order under the said section 1 constituting a new joint board for a united district consisting of the whole or part of a National Park and comprised in two or more new counties may confer on the board, in addition to the functions of a county planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, any other functions to which this Part of this Schedule applies.
3. If immediately before 1st April 1974 there is an existing joint planning board for a National Park comprised in two or more existing counties and on that date the Park will be wholly comprised in one new county, the Secretary of State shall by order reconstitute that board as a special planning board to discharge the functions to which this Part of this Schedule applies as respects the area of the Park and any enactment relating to joint boards constituted by an order under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 shall apply to a special planning board reconstituted under this Part of this Schedule and to the order reconstituting it as it applies to a joint planning board constituted under that section and to the order constituting it and shall so apply as if the area of the Park were a united district, but with the substitution of references to the council of a new county for any reference to the constituent authorities.
4. The Secretary of State may by an order under paragraph 1 or 3 above, or by an order under the said section 1 relating to a united district consisting of the whole or part of a National Park, or by an order under this paragraph, confer on a joint or special planning board for a National Park or any part of a National Park any of the additional country side functions as respects the Park or, as the case may be, any part of it.
5. For every National Park for which there is no joint planning board or special planning board the council or councils of the county or

counties in which the Park is comprised shall make arrangements under section 101 above for the discharge of the following functions of theirs as respects the Park by a separate committee to be known as a National Park Committee, that is to say—
(a) their functions to which this Part of this Schedule applies except those mentioned in paragraph 6 below; and
(b) their functions as local authority under the 1949 Act and the 1968 Act.
6. The functions of a council or councils excepted from the requirement imposed by paragraph 5 above are—
(a) their functions under Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971; and
(b) their functions under Part III and, so far as relating to planning control under Part III, Part V of that Act with respect to the carrying out of any such operations or any such use of land as are described in paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph 17(1)(d) of Schedule 16 to this Act;
(c) their functions under Part III and, so far as relating to planning control under Part III, Part V of that Act with respect to the carrying out of any operations affecting, or any use of, land partly situated in the National Park and partly in some other area, where those functions so far as relating to operations affecting, or the use of, land in that other area are exercisable by the local planning authority for that other area.
7. The validity of anything done or purporting to have been done by a National Park Committee in pursuance of arrangements made by virtue of paragraph 5 above shall not be called in question in any legal proceedings, or in any proceedings under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which are not legal proceedings, on the ground that it ought to have been done by the authority or one of the authorities by whom the arrangements were made.
8. The National Park Committee for a Park comprised in two or more new counties shall be appointed by the council of such of those counties as may be agreed between the councils of those counties or, in default of agreement, jointly by both or all those councils, and, where it is appointed by one of those councils, the expenses incurred by the Committee shall be defrayed by both or all those councils in such proportions as they may agree or as in default of agreement may be determined by the Secretary of State.
9. A National Park Committee may arrange with a district planning authority whose area comprises any part of the Park for the authority to discharge as respects a part of the Park within their area such of the functions exercisable by the Committee by virtue of paragraph 5 above as may be agreed between the Committee and the Countryside Commission or as in default of agreement may be determined by the Secretary of State.
10. Where a joint planning board, special planning board or National Park Committee is required to be established by being reconstituted or appointed under this Part of this


Schedule for any area being or comprised in a National Park, the requirement shall be deemed to be complied with in any case approved by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Countryside Commission if the board or Committee is established for that area together with other land.
11. Not less than one-third of the members of a joint planning board, special planning board or National Park Committee established for an area being or comprising the whole or any part of a National Park shall be persons appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Countryside Commission.

No. 750, in page 272, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'application', and insert 'Section 101, shall, in its'.

No. 751, in page 272, line 19, leave out from '5' to end of line 21 and insert
'above are required to be discharged by a National Park Committee except in accordance with that paragraph'.

No. 752, in page 272, line 23, leave out from '5' to end of line 25 and insert
'for the discharge of any functions by a National Park Committee'.

No. 753, in page 272, leave out lines 26 to 33 and insert—
11A. In the case of a National Park Committee for a National Park wholly comprised in one county the members of the Committee shall (subject to paragraph 11 above) be appointed by, and the majority of those members shall be members of, the council of the county, and in the case of a National Park Committee for a National Park comprised in two or more counties the members of the Committee shall (subject as aforesaid) be appointed by such of the councils of those counties as may be agreed between those councils or as in default of agreement may be determined by the Secretary of State and a majority of the members of the Committee shall be members of those councils, and—
(a) so much of section 102(3) above as regulates the proportion of members of a committee shall not apply to a National Park Committee; and
(b) section 102(5) shall apply to a member of a National Park Committee appointed under this paragraph as being a member of a county council as it applies in relation to a member of a committee appointed under that section who was at the time of his appointment a member of the appointing authority or one of the appointing authorities.

National Park Officer

11B. Every joint planning board, special planning board or National Park Committee established for a National Park shall after consultation with the Countryside Commission appoint an officer, to be known as a National Park Officer, for the purposes of the functions exercisable by them as respects the Park by virtue of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or this Part of this Schedule.

11C. A National Park Officer appointed by a National Park Committee shall be an officer of the county council by whom the Committee was established or, if it was established by two or more such council, such one of them as they may agree or as, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Secretary of State.
11D. A National Park Officer appointed by a joint board or special planning board or a National Park Committee shall not be employed for any purpose other than one mentioned in paragraph 11B above except after consultation between the authority by whom he is employed and the Countryside Commission and, in the case of a National Park Officer appointed by a National Park Committee, except with the Committee's consent

National Parks Plans

11E. Every joint planning board, special planning board or National Park Commission established for a National Park shall—
(a) within three years of 1st April 1974 or of being established, whichever is the later, prepare and publish a plan to be known as a National Park Plan formulating their policy for the management of the Park and for the exercise of the functions exercisable by them as respects the Park; and
(b) review at intervals of not more than five years a National Park Plan published under this paragraph, making any amendments to it which they consider expedient, and publish a report on their review and any such amendments.
11F. Every such board of committee established for a National Park shall in preparing or reviewing a National Park Plan send a copy of the proposed plan or review to the Countryside Commission and to any district planning authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the Park and take into consideration any observations of the Commission or any such authority thereon and shall send the Secretary of State a copy of a National Park Plan published under paragraph 11E above and of the report on any review or amendments so published.

No. 754, in page 272, line 37, at end insert 'and any enactment amending any of those Acts'.

No. 1018, in page 274, line 29, leave out paragraph 24 and insert—
'24. Section 28(3) of the 1949 Act shall not apply to Wales and in that subsection the word "rural" shall be omitted and for the words "representative body of the parish or a member of that body" there shall be substituted the words "chairman of the parish meeting or any person representing the parish on the district council" '.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 181

TOWN DEVELOPMENT

Amendments made:  No. 691, in page 118, line 34, leave out '1' and insert '1(1)'.

No. 692, in page 118, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'there' in line 42 and insert 'for the word "elsewhere" '.— [Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1074, in page 119, line 19, leave out 'the preceding provisions of this section' and insert
'this Part of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we shall discuss Government Amendment No. 1080.

Mr. Page: The purpose of Amendment No. 1080 is to enable a joint sewerage board set up under Clause 177(3) to be a participating authority for the purposes of a town development scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 18

AMENTS OF TOWN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1952

Amendment made:  No. 1080, in page 275, line 50, at end insert
'and in paragraph (d) after the words "1945" there shall be inserted the words "under section 177 of the Local Government Act 1972" '.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 182

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION FUNCTIONS

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 695, in page 119, line 32, leave out '1960' and insert '1972'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are also to take Government Amendments Nos. 696 and 697.

Mr. Speed: I believe that it would also be to the convenience of the House to take with it Government Amendments Nos. 698 to 703, the repeal Amendments to Schedule 30.
The Amendments are made necessary by the enactment since the completion of the Committee stage of the Bill of the Road Traffic Act, 1972, which came into operation on 1st July. The Act consolidates road traffic law. The Amendments take account of the resulting changes in existing legislation. They are purely formal and involve no changes of substance in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:  No. 696, in page 120, line 11, at end insert—
(3) In section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 (power of Secretary of State, on application of certain local authorities and other persons, to modify restrictions on use of roads by public service vehicles) for the words 'county borough or county district' in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'county or district'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 19

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS REALTING TO ROAD TRAFFIC AND ABANDONED VEHICLES

Amendment made:  No. 697, in page 276, leave out lines 14 to 34 and insert—

THE ROAD TRAFFIC AND ACT 1972

1. In section 31(7), for the words 'county borough or county district' there shall be substituted the word 'county'.
2. In section 33(4), for the words 'of a borough or of an urban district' there shall be substituted the words 'or of a London borough'.
3. In section 35(5), in paragraph (a) for the words from 'county borough' in the first place where they occur to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words 'London borough', and the words 'and in this subsection "county borough" includes a London borough' shall be omitted.
4. In section 38, subsection (3) shall be omitted and in subsection (5)(a) for the words 'a borough or an urban district' there shall be substituted the words 'or London borough'.
5. In section 43(3) for the words 'of a borough, of an urban district' there shall be substituted the words 'of a district or London borough'.
6. In section 196(1) in the definition of 'highway authority', the words 'the council of a county borough, the council of a non-county borough or an urban district' shall be omitted.—[Mr. Speed.]

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 786, in page 277, line 39, leave out from '6'to end of line 16 on page 278 and insert
'in paragraph (a) for the words "the council of a county borough" there shall be substituted the words "subject to subsections (6A) and (7) and section 28A below, the council of a county "and the words "subject to subsection (7) below" shall be omitted.
(2) After subsection (6) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection: —
"(6A) Subject to section 28A(1) below, before exercising their powers under subsection (1) above or section 31(1) below, a county council shall consult the council of


the district in which the parking place is to be, or is, situated".
15A. After section 28 there shall be inserted the following section: —
28A.—(1) In relation to roads in England—
(a) the power to make an order under subsection (1) of section 28 above authorising the use as a parking place of any part of a road shall not be exercisable by district councils, and
(b) subsection (6A) of that section shall not apply in relation to the exercise of that power by a county council.
(2) Subject to subsection (1) above, a district council shall not exercise their powers under section 28, section 29 other than sub sections (3) and (7) to (9) thereof, section 29A or section 31(1) of this Act without the consent of the county council, and any consent given by the county council may be subject to such conditions or restrictions as they think fit.
(3) Where a district council propose to make an Order under section 31 or (in the case of a district council in Wales) section 28 of this Act, the district council shall submit a draft of the order to the county council who may, without prejudice to their power to give or withhold consent to the making of the order, require such modifications of the terms of the proposed order as they think appropriate.
(4) A district council who are aggrieved by the refusal of a county council to give consent under subsection (2) above, by any conditions or restrictions subject to which any such consent is given, or by any modifications required under subsection (3) above may appeal to the Secretary of State; and on any such appeal the Secretary of State may give such directions as he thinks fit either dispensing with the need for consent or varying or revoking any such conditions, restrictions or modifications.
(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, the power to vary or revoke an order made by a district council under section 28(1) above or section 3(1) below shall be exercisable by the county council as well as by the district council; but if the county council propose to make an order in the exercise of that power they shall send a copy of the proposed order to the district council who made the order which it is proposed to vary or revoke.
(6) If, not later than six weeks after they have received from the county council a copy of a proposed order under subsection (5) above, a district council serve notice on the county council and the Secretary of State of their objection to the making of the proposed order and the objection is not with drawn by a further notice served not later than six weeks after the service of the notice of objection, the county council shall submit a copy of the proposed order to the Secretary of State and may not make the order except with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(7) The Secretary of State may, if he consents to any order submitted to him for his consent under subsection (6) above, con-

sent to the order either in the form in which it was submitted to him or with such modifications as he thinks fit, which include additions, exceptions or other modifications of any description; but where he proposes to consent to the order with modifications which appear to him substantially to affect the character of the order as submitted to him, he shall, before doing so, take such steps as appear to him to be sufficient and reasonably practicable for informing the county council and district council in question and any other persons likely to be concerned".
15B. In section 31, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection: —
"(1A) The powers of a county council under this section shall apply in relation to any parking place—
(a) provided by the council of a district in the county under section 28 of this Act, or
(b) provided under any letting or arrangements made by the council of such a district under section 29(6) thereof.
as they apply in relation to parking places provided by, or under any letting or arrangements made by, the county council; but if, by virtue of this subsection, a county council propose to make an order under subsection (1) above in relation to a parking place they shall send a copy of the proposed order to the district council concerned and subsections (6) and (7) of section 28A of this Act shall apply with the substitution of a reference to this subsection for the reference to subsection (5) of that section" '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 787 to 791 and 1118.

Mr. Speed: The Amendment seeks to give effect to the undertakings given by Ministers in Standing Committee that the new district councils in England should have concurrent powers with the new county councils for the provision and regulation of off-street car parks; the powers to be exercisable with the consent of the county councils, but with provision for an appeal by the district council to the Secretary of State against unreasonable refusal of consent or the imposition of unreasonable conditions.
The Amendment proposes the following changes to the powers in Sections 28 to 32 of the 1967 Act: 
The district councils and the county councils in England and Wales, outside Greater London, will have concurrent powers to provide and regulate off-street car parks.
The district council's powers will be exercisable subject to the consent of the


county council, which may be conditional.
A district council which is aggrieved by a county council's refusal of consent or imposition of conditions may appeal to the Secretary of State, who may dispense with the need for consent or may modify the conditions.
A county council will be able to regulate a district car park, including varying or revoking a district council's own regulations, but if the district council objects, may do so only with the consent of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Secretary of State may include modifications.
County councils will have to consult the district councils before exercising their off-street parking powers.
The Amendment also has the effect of applying the consent and appeal procedures to orders under Section 28(1) covering free on-street parking made by Welsh districts: and of excluding English districts from power to make such orders.
Amendments Nos. 787, 788 and 789 deal with the Welsh provision.
Amendment No. 790 has a triple purpose. The first is to integrate the new procedures introduced by Amendment No. 786 into the Secretary of State's reserve powers in Section 84A of the 1967 Act, whereby he may give a direction to a local authority to make a parking order or may make such an order himself. The effect of the Amendment is that, if the Secretary of State were to use his reserve powers for this purpose, neither the consultation provision nor the consent and appeal provisions would apply.
The second purpose is to bring the consent and appeal provisions into the category of matters on which the Secretary of State may make regulations under Section 84C of the 1967 Act.
The third purpose is technical—to introduce into the powers conferred on local authorities by Section 84D of the 1967 Act the limitations now included in Amendments 786 and 788, that is, that if a county intends to vary or revoke a district council's order it should send a copy of the proposed order to the district council whose order it intends to vary or revoke.
Amendment 791 is to remedy an existing deficiency in the Bill. Section 82 of the 1967 Act provides that in the case of boundary roads between two local authorities, powers over the road may be exercised by either authority with the consent of the other. The powers concerned are mainly traffic regulations powers and should have been transferred in the Bill from county boroughs and districts outside Greater London to county councils. I regret to say that by an oversight this has not been effected in the Bill until now.
Amendment 1118 is purely consequential.

Mr. John Silkin: This is a nod in the direction of those of us who in Committee wanted the Minister to go further with the provision of car parking. It goes some way and we are grateful for it. I know that the Bill has been altered, amended, turned round and put back and turned backwards so many times that I almost hesitate, at twenty minutes to one in the morning, to ask the Minister to look again at whether he cannot go a little further along the road. If he can, we shall be delighted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:  No. 787 in page 278, line 23, leave out from 'Wales" to end of line 25 and insert
'subject to section 35A of this Act, the council of a county or of a district'.

No. 788, in page 278, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
16A. After section 35 there shall be inserted the following section—
35A.—(1) Before exercising their powers under section 35, section 36, section 37 or section 39(1) of this Act, the Council of a county in Wales shall consult the council of the district in which the designated parking place is to be, or is, situated.
(2) The council of a district in Wales shall not exercise their powers under any of the provisions specified in subsection (1) above without the consent of the county council, and any consent given by the county council may be subject to such conditions or restrictions as they think fit.
(3) Where a district council in Wales propose to make an order under any of the provisions specified in subsection (1) above, the district council shall submit a draft of the order to the county council who may, without prejudice to their power to give or withhold consent to the making of the order, require such modifications of the terms of


the proposed order as they think appropriate.
(4) A district council who are aggrieved by the refusal of the county council to give consent under subsection (2) above, by any conditions or restrictions subject to which any such consent is given, or by any modifications required under subsection (3) above may appeal to the Secretary of State; and on any such appeal the Secretary of State may give such directions as he thinks fit either dispensing with the need for consent or varying or revoking any such conditions, restrictions or modifications.
(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, the power to vary or revoke an order made by a district council in Wales under any of the provisions specified in subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by the county council as well as by the district council; but if the county council propose to make an order in the exercise of that power they shall send a copy of the proposed order to the district council who made the order which it is proposed to vary or revoke.
(6) If, not later than six weeks after they have received from the county council a copy of a proposed order under subsection (5) above, a district council in Wales serve notice on the county council and the Secretary of State of their objection to the making of the proposed order and the objection is not withdrawn by a further notice served not later than six weeks after the service of the notice of objection, the county council shall submit a copy of the proposed order to the Secretary of State and may not make the order except with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(7) The Secretary of State may, if he consents to any order submitted to him for his consent under subsection (6) above, consent to the order either in the form in which it was submitted to him or with such modifications as he thinks fit, which may include additions, exceptions or other modifications of any description; but where he proposes to consent to the order with modifications which appear to him substantially to affect the character of the order as submitted to him, he shall, before doing so, take such steps as appear to him to be sufficient and reasonably practicable for informing the county council and district council in question and any other persons likely to be concerned'.

No. 789, in page 279, line 12, at end insert—
16B. At the end of section 36 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(3) The power of a county council in Wales to make an order under subsection (2) above or section 37(3) below shall apply in relation to any parking place designated by an order made by the council of a district in the county as they apply in relation to a parking place designated by an order made by the county council; but if, by virtue of this subsection, a county council in Wales propose to make an order under subsection (2) above or section 37(3) below they shall send a copy of the proposed order to the

district council concerned and subsections (6) and (7) of section 35A of this Act shall apply with the substitution of a reference to this subsection for the reference to subsection (5) of that section'.

No. 790, in page 279, line 48, at end insert—
23A. In section 84A, after subsection (6), there shall be inserted the following subsections—
'(6A) Where the Secretary of State—
(a) gives a direction under subsection (1) above requiring a county council or district council to make an order under section 28(1) or section 31(1) of this Act, or
(b) makes such an order by virtue of subsection (2) above,
neither subsection (6A) of section 28 nor subsections (2) to (4) of section 28A of this Act shall apply in relation to anything done in pursuance of the direction or, as the case may be, in relation to the making of the order by the Secretary of State.
(6B) Where the Secretary of State—
(a) gives a direction under subsection (1) above requiring a county or district council in Wales to make an order under any of the provisions specified in subsection (1) of section 35A of this Act, or
(b) by virtue of subsection (2) above, makes such an order in relation to a parking place in Wales,
nothing in subsection (1) to (4) of section 35A of this Act shall apply in relation to anything done in pursuance of the direction or, as the case may be, in relation to the making of the order by the Secretary of State'.
23B.—(1) In section 84C, in subsection (2) after the words 'of the appropriate Minister' there shall be inserted the words 'or a county council,' and after the words 'that Minister' there shall be inserted the words 'or council' and after the words 'submitted to him' there shall be inserted the words 'or them'.
(2) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection: —
'(5A) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the procedure in connection with appeals to him by district councils under sections 28A and 35A of this Act'.
23C. In section 84D(1), after the words 'Subject to' there shall be inserted the words 'sections 28A(5) and 35A(5) above and to'.

No. 791, in page 279, line 48, at end insert—
23A. In section 82(4), the words 'or county borough, county district' and 'borough included in a rural district' shall be omitted and at the end there shall be added the words 'or, in relation to section 28(1) of this Act, the council of a district in Wales'.

No. 1107, in page 280, line 18, at end insert—
'and for the words 'the authority or the Council" there shall be substituted the words "that body" '.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 183

LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES AND MAINTENANCE POWERS OF DISTRICT COUNCILS.

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move Amendment No. 432, in page 121, line 9, leave out "have power to".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take the following Amendments: No. 433, in page 121, line 26, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

No. 434, in page 121, line 45, at end insert:
'and "maintenance" includes construction, improvement, repair and lighting'.

No. 435, in page 121, line 45, at end insert:
(7) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section the functions of the local highway authority for highways outside Greater London shall be discharged by the district councils to the extent specified in a scheme made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(8) Subject to regulations under this section, it shall be the duty of the local highway authority in consultation with the district councils to make, and thereafter to keep under review and amend, if they think fit, a scheme (to be known as a county highways scheme) for the discharge of all or any of the functions of the local highway authority, and those functions shall be discharged in accordance with the scheme and not otherwise by the local high way authority or the district councils designated in the scheme.
(9) A county highways scheme may include such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as may appear to the local highway authority to be necessary or proper for the purposes or in consequence of the provisions of the scheme and for giving full effect thereto, and, without prejudice to the foregoing provision, shall—
(a) designate those highways in respect of which a district council shall discharge the functions of the local highway authority (subject to the consent of the Secretary of State in respect of trunk roads);
(b) specify the nature and extent of those functions to be discharged by a district council in respect of the highways so designated;
(c) in designating highways and specifying functions under the scheme, have regard to the extent of the built-up character of the area of the district council and the capacity of a district council to discharge those functions;
(d) specify procedures to secure that the discharge of functions under the scheme accords with the strategic transportation and

highway policies and proposals of the local highway authority.
(10) The Secretary of State may direct a local highway authority after consultation with the district councils—
(a) to prepare a county highways scheme before a date specified in the direction; and
(b) where it appears to the Secretary of State that any such scheme should be amended, to amend to in terms so specified before a date so specified.
(11) Where a district council make representations to the Secretary of State that they are dissatisfied with the proposals of the local highway authority for a county highways scheme, or a local highway authority fails to comply with a direction under subsection (10) of this section to make or amend such a scheme, the Secretary of State may himself make or, as the case may be, amend the scheme; and any scheme or amendment so made shall have effect as if made by the local highway authority.
(12) The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) providing for the content of such schemes;
(b) requiring the local highway authority to take prescribed procedural steps in connection with the preparation of such schemes.
(13) A local highway authority shall exercise their power of making a county highways scheme before 1st April 1974 or such earlier date as the Secretary of State may direct under subsection (10) of this section, but any scheme made before that date by virtue of this subsection shall not come into operation until that date.

No. 438, in page 282, leave out from line 8 to end of line 43.

No. 436, in page 122, line 18, leave out 'county councils' and insert 'district councils'.

No. 437, in page 122, line 19, leave out 'county council' and insert
'district council shall be the highway authority for the purposes of section 40 of the Highways Act 1959 (power of highway authorities to adopt by agreement) and'.

No. 439, in page 293, leave out from line 30 to end of line 29 on page 296.

No. 440, in page 296, leave out from line 48 to end of line 2 on page 298.

Government Amendments Nos. 704, 705, 706, 707, 709, 708.

Sir Bernard Braine: The purpose of this and the other Amendments is to secure for district councils wider powers under Clause 183 in respect of urban roads. I begin by stating my firm belief that in the allocation of functions lies the success or failure of this great reforming Measure. I am convinced that as the


Bill stands it falls short of what is required if the new and enlarged district councils are to get off the ground successfully and to work effectively. Let us make no mistake about it: this is where the grass roots of democratic local government lie.
If the new districts are not given adequate functions then local government will wither because people of the right calibre will not be attracted to its service. Though it is very early in the morning, only an hour ago the chairman of one of my local authorities, an experienced councillor with many years of service, said to me "I and many like me am waiting to see what powers the district councils will have before I decide whether I shall continue in public life."
12.45 a.m.
That is bad enough, but there is worse to follow. It is wrong; it is unfair, and it is unnecessary to take away functions already enjoyed and competently carried out by many district councils. It is even more wrong, more unfair and more unnecessary, especially when the average new district council will be roughly twice the size, in population, and have twice the resources of the existing councils. The taking away of highway powers is perhaps the most striking example. I am aware that my right hon. Friend set out the Government's basic thinking on this score in the Second Reading debate, when he said that given a two-tier system of local government, those, matters which concerned a wide catchment area and the public at large would best be dealt with by the new county authorities, while functions more closely relating to local people should be exercised by the new district councils. In the first category he included not only education, social services and strategic planning, but transportation.
But in the same debate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development said that the Bill's purpose is to give every district council
the functions which give it the complete power to create and to control the character of that district…"—[Official Report, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 346.]
Few would quarrel with that, yet it is implicit in those two speeches that there is some confusion and contradiction. In planning, the division between the require-

ment that strategic control should be in the hands of counties while detailed control should be in the hands of district authorities has been determined in what is a generally acceptable way. But why cannot similar arrangements be made in respect of highways?
My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones), whose wisdom and experience has illumined our discussions on the Bill, asked this very question in Committee. I shall not rehearse the arguments that he used. They impressed the Committee, but suffice it to say that they received no answer. Therefore, I ask once again: where is the sense in entrusting district councils with some responsibility for planning while withholding some responsibility for highways?
In this day and age those two sets of responsibility go together. The Buchanan Report on Traffic in Towns made very clear, nearly a decade ago, that traffic and buildings are two facets of the same problem. In essence, that report said that those who designed and allocated buildings should not take for granted that the street system will be adequate to take the additional traffic that the development will generate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South said in Committee, how is it possible to plan a town centre if, at the same time, one is not having regard to the planning of the highways; if one is not having regard to the planning of traffic management, and if one is not having regard to on and off-street paring? Clearly the same authority ought to be responsible for the related decisions which have to take place at a very early stage if that development is to be effective.
Equally, as the Buchanan Report warned, those who have responsibility for planning street systems should not have the power to ruin the established amenities of one group of people in order to permit the public at large to use their personal transport more conveniently. I tell my right hon. Friend seriously that environment is everybody's responsibility, but that a particular environment is the particular responsibility of those who live closest to it and those most likely to know most about it, namely, district councils. It is because, in my view, the Bill conspires against these principles that


my hon. Friends and I put down these Amendments.
It is not too much to say that in this context the Bill diminishes local government, weakens local democracy and does not offer any compensatory advantages.
I take one example from my area. I should not mind betting that there are a score of Members who could say the same thing about the areas that they know and represent. In Essex all urban districts are the local highway authorities for the district roads within their areas. Moreover, most urban districts with populations in excess of 20,000 have "claimed" county roads and are, therefore, local highway authorities for all roads within their boundaries, except, of course, trunk roads. In Essex, 13 boroughs and urban districts exercise such "claimed" or delegated functions. They exercise complete responsibility for repair, maintenance and improvement of their roads, and, what is more, I have never heard it suggested that they do not exercise those responsibilities extremely well. They are also responsible for the provision of street lighting, on and off-street car parking, and schemes of traffic management and regulation. Most authorities manage these services through their own highways and works departments under their own engineers and surveyors and—and this is important—they provide engineering services for the whole range of local government departments.
The Bill takes away from the new districts virtually all these functions and vests them in the counties. It leaves the districts with the mere right to elect to maintain footpaths, bridle ways, and urban roads, which are neither trunk nor classified roads, together with the power to execute urgent repairs in private streets. Moreover, unlike the existing powers, the powers proposed by the Bill extend only to maintenance and do not include even minor improvements.
I am advised—and I can go only on what I am told by experienced local government officers and by the chairmen of responsible local authorities, men and women, who have served long in local government—that these proposals in practice will give rise to so many difficulties in administration that district

councils will be reluctant to exercise them.
District councils will have no other highway powers whatsoever. They have to give up street lighting, their local traffic management and regulation and provision for car parking, and even their private street works powers are to be exercised by the county authority. We get to the situation that the new, enlarged district councils envisaged by this Bill will be reduced virtually to filling in potholes and surfacing only those unclassified urban roads within their boundaries. That is the reality. Such provisions, in my view, are quite ludicrous, and I hope the Government will have swift second thoughts.
Since so much emphasis has been put in this Bill—and rightly so—on the need to make local government more efficient, I do not think it should be lost upon hon. Members that one consequence of these particular proposals will be to end the central works units available to service all the other departments of the new district councils.
If it were the case that the existing district councils had not carried out their highway functions efficiently, one might be less critical and I certainly would not be standing here making this speech at this hour of the morning. But that cannot be argued. It certainly cannot be argued in respect of my constituency. In my constituency, where an urban district is a claiming authority, I can state categorically that the standard of maintenance of county roads is markedly higher than that in adjoining areas where the county council is responsible. The standard in all urban districts is markedly higher than it is in the rural districts, and we all know the reason why. In the 20 years of my membership of this House I have witnessed the rapid improvement and development of highways in an urban district which has become a highway authority. The improvement was a result of its exercising the powers which are to be taken away from it. Equally, I have witnessed the appalling difficulties which arise in areas where agency agreements exist.
Let me quote from a letter that I received only this morning from the clerk of a rural district council in my constituency where the state of the roads still


is a source of constant complaint. It says:
…my experience leads me to regard agency arrangements between county and district councils as a source of hindrance and frustration in achieving the desired objective. You may remember that until three years ago the rural district council exercised private street works powers in making up unmade streets under an agency arrangement with the Essex County Council. We finally had to ask the county council to terminate the arrangement and take the work back because of the difficulties that were arising. The main points of difficulty were: (1) Much time was lost while various steps received formal approval by both authorities. (2) The rural district council was responsible for preparing schemes and supervising their execution and the county council provided the money. It was never possible to adequately integrate these two aspects because each was considered in isolation by separate groups of members. (3) Contentions arose from time to time regarding the freedom of action available to the district council and the responsibility of the county council for the district council's actions.
That is the experience of a local authority, knowing its own area, not having the effective powers to provide the services which people want.
I could say a great deal more about this, but I know that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to catch your eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall listen with great care to what my right hon. Friend the Minister says on the subject.
The Government will lose none of their authority if they accept these Amendments, which will do much to strengthen local government at the grass roots and to give the new district councils worthwhile powers. It will be a popular and acceptable move if my right hon. Friend finds it possible to accept the Amendments or to indicate that he will look at them and do something at a later stage. It is in that spirit that I commend my Amendment to the House.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I welcome the slight change of heart from that which was apparent in the White Paper, because the districts are given just a little more than the very ungenerous apportionment in the White Paper. However, it does not go far enough, and the Bill still frustrates the declared policy of the Government in the White Paper and in the Second Reading debate on 16th November. 1971.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) referred to the Minister's statement on Second Reading that
…the most important decisions which have emerged from all our discussions following the White Paper are those which have allotted to every district the functions which give it the complete power to create and to control the character of that district, with due regard to the general strategy of its county…We must look at the whole question of highways in this way or the traffic will snarl up, at the same time leaving the representatives of the districts to look after those roads which are, like residential roads, part of the character of those areas."—[Official Report, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, cc. 346–8.]
Surely that must mean that the district councils should retain those highway functions of predominantly local interest. I say "retain" because at present a council with a population of 30,000 can claim the right to improve and maintain its roads, and that carries with it traffic management. But according to the Bill, this is to go by the board.
How is it possible to give a district—to quote the Minister's words—
…the complete power to create and to control the character of that district
unless the council of the district has responsibility for local highways, including traffic management and car parking?
Let me apply this to my own constituency. Watford, with a population of 76,000, which has hitherto exercised various functions of vital local concern such as local highways, traffic management and car parks with efficiency and expedition, will be sorely affected by the deprivation of these functons. Up to the present, Watford has been the highway authority for all district roads and, as claiming authority, for all principal roads. It has carried out its functions extremely well.
Hon. Members may not be aware of it, but a team from Leicester University's Economics Department, on behalf of the Freight Transport Association, has been carrying out a detailed analysis of all the effects of the Watford precinct traffic experiment. Its conclusion is that the Watford scheme could be applied to many other towns, that it has brought real benefit to the local community, and that these benefits are likely to be increased when the whole scheme has been completed. This scheme, which is a massive central area redevelopment going on at


present at a cost of about £5 million, probably would not have been carried out if the borough council had not been given powers of traffic regulation and management.
1.0 a.m.
The very lifeblood of Watford depends on free traffic movement in the centre. It is impossible for a busy town such as Watford to grow and develop without having the regulation and management of traffic under its control.
I believe that Watford was the pioneer in the creation of pedestrian and service precincts, and it is in the forefront concerning parking arrangements, with three multi-storey car parks to its credit. It is impossible that someone in, say, the town of Hertford should make decisions on car parking or one-way streets in Watford. They are vital to the life of the town and should therefore be left to the district council.
What have the districts had left to them by this Bill? Merely the function of maintaining, not even improving, unclassified roads—not even non-strategic classified roads—in urban areas. Watford will be shorn of its present ability to exercise the powers of traffic regulation and management. It will be able only to resurface a road and to fill in potholes. What a tremendous activity for a borough with a qualified staff of engineers! Talk of square pegs in round holes!
A further point may have escaped the Minister's attention. District councils are to be responsible for the preparation of local plans and town centre development, subject always, of course, to the county strategic plan. These are highly important powers. But how can a district implement and carry out these plans effectively unless it has the requisite powers? Surely the Minister must realise that highway improvement and traffic regulation and management are integral parts of local planning and town development or redevelopment. In fact, the whole redevelopment plan will often be, as the present central area plan in Watford is, geared to highway improvement and traffic regulation: for example, parking, one-way streets, waiting, pedestrian crossings, precincts, traffic islands, traffic lights, and so on. In fact, they form the main basis of the plan for

redevelopment. The relief of congestion is one of the basic reasons for the preparation of the plan.
In any urban area, therefore, replanning is dictated by traffic considerations and to bifurcate the responsibility for local plans and redevelopment, on the one hand, and traffic regulation and management, on the other, as proposed in the Bill, is completely self-defeating. One cancels out the other, and we shall get nowhere at all.
How would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like to be a passenger in a motor car with the accelerator under the control of one man and the steering wheel under the control of another?
Turning to council housing schemes, the same difficulty is at once apparent. As housing authority the district will have to deal with housing improvement areas. Are we to leave, for example, access to garages to the county? All this will come to nought if the Bill goes through and the district cannot deal with highways.
Highway powers affect the local environment. This is an area in which the county council has no experience. It follows that if the important matter of traffic management and regulation is left to the county council, the interests of the public will suffer. The local council is much more attuned to the ear of the public in Watford than is the county council.
The Minister made one concession for which we are grateful. He promised to table an Amendment to give the district power to provide off-street parking. That was on 29th February, 1972, col. 2125. Standing Committee D.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving what I hope is a wrong impression of reading his speech.

Mr. Tuck: I am speaking from full notes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Why limit it in this way? Why not on-street parking, too? The position will be most unsatisfactory if the district has no control over this matter.
I know that I shall have thrown at me Clause 101 and the promise of the Secretary of State last Monday to bring in a new Clause in another place. The precise terms of the new Clause are not known, but its effect must be strictly limited. In particular, there is a limited period during


which the right of appeal to the Secretary of State will operate, after which presumably the county council can play havoc with the district council. The district councils and county councils will continually be at each other's throat. The proposed delegation is no substitute for direct conferment of functions on district councils, where these functions are essential. However, if the districts are to have local responsibility for the environment, which the Government have insisted they are entitled to have, the Government must realise that responsibility for local implementation is inseparable from the general control over local environment, which the Government have said they wish to place in the hands of the district councils.
I again remind the Secretary of State of the words of the White Paper:
Decisions should be taken and seen to be taken as locally as possible.
Therefore, I urge the Government to extend Clause183 so as to give district councils responsibility for all works connected with public highways of the kind covered by the Clause, and so as to require county councils to prepare county highway schemes. They need not prepare county highway schemes in every case. Amendment No. 435 states that the county shall
…in designating highways and specifying functions under the scheme, have regard to the extent of the built-up character of the area of the district council and the capacity of a district council to discharge those functions".
and
specify procedures to secure that the discharge of functions under the scheme accords with the strategic transportation and highway policies and proposals of the local highway authority.
In other words, the whole thing will be subject to the strategic overall county plan. The Minister need not fear that it will not be. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept these Amendments so as to honour the Government's original declared intention.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: My observations will be shorter than those of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), though perhaps delivered with a shade less than the rapid and enviable volubility with which the hon. Gentleman addressed the House. At any rate, those hon. Members

who do not have my good fortune in knowing Watford will know much more about it now.
The contrast in the Clause is clear and significant. The first subsection is categoric and sweeping, giving the function of highway authority to the county councils. The rest of the provisions of the Clause, conferring powers on the district, are pale by comparison and restricted in effect. They confer power rather than an express duty or express entitlement. The power is restricted to maintenance and to work done only as a paid agent of the highway authority. That being so, I can well understand the feelings of those who will comprise the new districts, including the urban districts and rural districts of my constituency, that this is insufficient, and that design and construction, in particular, and appropriate responsibility for traffic and car parking, should be added to their functions.
The basic defect of the Clause appears to be that it applies a unitary concept of highways and transportation in a Bill which has non-unitary overall effect and depends on a reasonable balance of the two-tier system. The salient factor is the planning pattern. If the pattern is right, then the highway pattern should reflect it and bear an appropriate relationship to it.
It is of course arguable—and is argued by some—that there could and should have been a more unitary approach to the planning functions. But that is not what the Bill has done. It has given the pattern in Clause 178, with the task of preparing the local plans given to the district councils. Therefore, we have to take that as it is, and with that planning pattern the highway pattern is manifestly inconsistent.
I do not think that this inconsistency can wholly be explained by the suggestion that highways and planning are generic-ally different in their substance. In fact, the design and positioning of roads are a central feature of and are essentially within the framework of general planning, a truth which has been learned the hard way over the last two or three decades by the practitioners in town planning and has been formulated on the high authority of Sir Colin Buchanan. It is difficult to see how the local planning functions in


the Bill can be fully meaningful without responsibility in this regard.
Without responsibility for the design and construction, for example, of estate roads in new development, and particularly in council estates, where the district council is not only the planning authority but the housing authority as well, it is difficult to see how the expected development and urban renewal can be done without these functions being entrusted to the district councils as well. These things lie at the heart of local urban planning, and whatever might be the logic of the matter if highways could be taken in isolation, in conjunction with planning there should be a presumption that higher responsibilities are given so as to follow the overall planning.
Further, if the highway function is left on the present pattern, the districts can scarcely hope to be able to recruit the necessary qualified engineering staff for their purpose. They will be in the difficulty that the Bill gives them sufficient functions to require technical staff but functions of an insufficiently professional interest to attract staff of the right calibre. In these difficult circumstances—difficult because there may be some conflict of interest here between executive aspects of highways and town planning functions—I find the county highway scheme proposed in Amendment No. 435 attractive. It is something which can perhaps be commended to my right hon. Friend as a way of meeting this dilemma because subsection 9(c) and 9(d) draws a fair balance and safeguards the county council's strategic interests.
I hope, therefore, that, if my right hon. Friend is impressed with the wish of hon. Members to give a greater function to the districts in this context, he will think that this is a method whereby it can be done without prejudice or undue erosion of the proper functions of the county councils. At any rate, it is something to which he might give consideration in the context of these matters in the hope of achieving some amelioration of the highways position of the districts, some expansion of their responsibilities, as being perhaps the best way of improving the status, increasing the effectiveness and enhancing the attractiveness of these new districts and thereby assisting the operation of the two-tier system which the Bill presents.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Wallace: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) on his forceful and direct speech. I have a feeling that the back-benchers are beginning to assert themselves, and both Front Benches had better take note because these issues are vitally important. Although we get whispered instructions that we might go home, and not wield the parish pump, these discussions are about the lifeblood of democracy in local authority areas. Whips on both sides might think in terms of back-bench benefit night.
To reduce major local authorities with a fine record of administration to the level of workman for the county council is ridiculous and out of keeping with local authority reform, particularly as they will be subject to the added insult of inspection and control by the new county council authorities.
City and borough authorities with deep knowledge of traffic control and highway management will be faced with losing powers completely and will be controlled by authorities which have no clue on these vital town problems. Traffic management in towns is so linked with road improvement, town centre development and residential area improvement that the district authority is bound to be more knowledgeable on local needs than the county authority.
I am not ashamed to say that Norwich has a fine record in this respect. I would draw the Minister's attention to one traffic problem and an ideal development. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), in his excellently read speech, referred to Watford's record in increasing development, but Norwich's record is greater still in the development of foot streets. London Street has been lauded by Ministers of this and previous Governments. We have had many representatives of foreign Governments visiting the city to see what has been done.
Responsibility for urban roads should be extended to include responsibility for full services for lighting, improvements and control of traffic and parking.
I say to the Minister and his assistants that we have had a hint in this debate. The Government are continually referring to the Amendment in principle which


they will move in another place to Clause 101. I have a suspicion that the Government are using this as an excuse to dodge accepting Amendments here.
We see this as the right way to assert ourselves on an issue of vital importance to our people.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I should like to echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) and others, including the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Wallace). The hon. Member left out one important point. We have up and down the country several historic cities to which we have paid lip service and which we, as a Government, have said that we intend to preserve.
We are taking away the right of these cities to preserve their own historic backgrounds. We cannot divorce the saving and the planning of these cities if we take away the right to control the roads which run through them.
I support the Amendment wholeheartedly, as do many of my hon. Friends because they feel that we cannot just talk about conservation and preservation, and that means that we must put the conservation of our historic cities where it has always been, with the city councillors who have done it over the past decade or so, not with the county councillors with no experience of city conservation whatever.

Mr. David Stoddart: I support the Amendment and those hon. Members who have spoken so ably to it, particularly the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), because he hit the nail on the head when he made two points. First, he said that local government and the district councils must have something to do, and, secondly, that the roads in an area are best looked after by the people who know the area. Let us make no mistake that we shall have difficulty in finding people of the right calibre to serve on the district authorities unless there is something significant for them to do.
I have had a certain amount of experience in local government. I served for 18 years on the county borough council of Reading. The Ministry of Transport wished to put in a traffic manage-

ment scheme which was agreed to by the council; but it was a scheme which turned the town upside down. It made two-way roads one-way roads. It routed buses against the flow of one-way traffic. It put bollards where bollards had not been before. There were traffic lights all over the place. People's environment was affected. The town was turned upside down with the acceptance of the people in the town because they knew their local representatives, and the local representatives were able to keep in touch with them and convince them that this was the right thing to do in the long term if Reading's traffic problems were to be sorted out; and anybody who wanted to get to South Wales before the M4 was constructed knows how difficult those traffic problems were.
It was necessary for local representatives—not colonels in the shires, but people who knew the town and the people in it—to convince the townsfolk that this needed to be done. That is why the hon. Member for Essex, South-East was so right when he said that we need local representation and local responsibility for roads within our districts.
The Minister, when he was talking about conservation areas, mentioned that districts should have complete power to create and control the character of their districts. How will they have that power if they cannot control the roads? The character of their districts will depend on many things. There will be a close inter-relationship between highways and housing, between highways and redevelopment, between highways and slum clearance and between highways and other local services. It is impossible to think about environmental improvement unless the authority controls highways in its district. It is absurd to talk of the theoretical advantage of having highways and transportation and traffic management under one head when so many disadvantages will flow from that decision.
The Minister is completely wrong in his approach to this problem. I hope that he will note all that has been said in the debate and will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I want to highlight the dilemma facing a town like Blackpool when it goes into a county district. Between the


county and the district of Blackpool there is a complete difference of approach to traffic problems. Under the Bill it will be the county officers who will decide the pattern and form of the traffic in our town. Their approach will be dominated, over the whole county, by a desire to make sure that traffic is kept to the minimum, that parking is provided away from the town centre, and that as far as possible cars are prevented from coming into the centre of the town.
The approach of a seaside resort is dramatically different, at any rate throughout the summer season when it has to earn its money. It wants cars to come into the centre. It wants parking restrictions to be the minimum. It wants, if possible, to avoid having meters so that people can park in the streets, get out of their cars and spend their money on the amusements provided by the town. The town depends upon that, and its approach to traffic problems is different from that of the county.
There will be a conflict of interest and of approach between the county and the district. I have said that meters will be no answer, but the planners who will decide whether we are to have meters will also decide what parking restrictions should be imposed. The whole parking situation will be dealt with in a different way from that which we would deal with it.
Blackpool has a special problem with the lights which are an enormous attraction for a short period at the end of the season. The provision of lights over the whole eight miles of the promenade is intimately connected with the highway authority whose employees help to make sure that the lights are provided by putting them up. It is not possible to run the kind of lighting display that we provide unless the highway authority is largely controlled by the local authority, and I fear that if this authority goes to the country we may find that it is not possible to provide the kind of display that we have provided in the past.
For those reasons I ask my right hon. Friend to give every consideration to the Amendment.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I rise to support the Amendment because, like most hon. Members on both sides of the House who

have spoken, I cannot see how some of the district councils will manage, particularly with regard to redevelopment.
The new county of Warwickshire looks something like a leaking, floppy pair of water wings. That is roughly the shape it takes, because the city of Coventry interposes itself between the north and south of the county. In other words, there is only a slender link down one side of Coventry between my constituency—which, if the Boundary Commission has its way with its draft recommendation will be one county district—and the other county districts south of Coventry. How on earth a county which is almost completely separated from the north of its area by Coventry is supposed to be able to exercise the detailed functions which it will have to exercise under the Bill I just do not know.
The thing that worries me is that both the towns in my constituency, which will become a district council, Nuneaton and Bedworth, have complex development plans. There is the Broad Street redevelopment proposal in Nuneaton, and the Park Street redevelopment proposal inBedworth. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that where there is a complex road redevelopment scheme all kinds of housing, traffic and social problems result from the uprooting of families who have lived in the area for many years, and perhaps even for generations. How can those repercussions be dealt with by a county authority which does not have detailed local knowledge?
1.30 a.m.
When talking particularly about redevelopment, I should have thought that the Government would at least have recognised that we must have in charge of all aspects of redevelopment a district council that knows the detailed wishes of the local inhabitants. That will not be so under these proposals. I repeat what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said tonight. I cannot see how a town is supposed to plan its environment for the future, or its future at all, without having control over car parking and traffic management in particular.
The Government have made one or two concessions on car parking, and I am pleased about that. But surely we


have now come to realise that an essential ingredient in traffic planning and traffic movement is not just the roads or car space we have but how we make use of them. The trouble is that though the district councils may be able to mend a few potholes, or at least go looking for the potholes—I am not sure to what extent they will be able to mend them properly—they will not have control over how the road space is to be utilised fully.
Apart from that, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have now a fair amount of experience of all kinds of traffic management devices, such as bus-only lanes. I cannot see how a county authority is supposed to know about the detailed effects of bus-only lanes on shoppers, traders, access points and pedestrians. If we are to obtain the optimum use and optimum allocation patterns by the use of traffic management, we must have more and more detailed knowledge. I cannot see how a county authority, even using the district authority as an agency, will manage this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) made a very important point about the experiments in distribution and loading which have been made under the auspices of the Freight Transport Association. That has been a very valuable experiment in that it has proved that shops can be accessed and serviced by lorries without interfering too much with pedestrian access. But that plan has been suffering a certain amount of dislocation because people have been parking cars in the wrong places and one or two access points have been fouled up. Like my hon. Friend, I hope that the Watford plan will be followed by other towns, because it is an ideal solution to many distribution problems. But even the Watford plan proves to many of us who have taken cognisance of what is happening there that more and more the district council must be the council which has increasing powers to control completely the setting up of one of these distribution centres, and access to it and use of it.
The only way to work one of these schemes successfully is to have in charge of it a district council which knows exactly the feelings of local inhabitants. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford and most of us who have in our constituencies attempts at pedestrian pre-

cincts know how sharp are the feelings of local pedestrians and traders. Nowadays it is impossible to divorce traffic management from access. The Reading scheme with all the bollards, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) was speaking, and with bus-only lanes, throws into sharp relief some of the access patterns and problems caused by traffic management these days. I cannot see how we shall have a county authority responsible for traffic management which causes these access problems when it will be only the district council which hears of these problems in sharp relief, particularly from pedestrians.
For all those reasons, and because I represent two towns which both have complex redevelopment plans and I believe that only a district council can be fully in touch with the reactions of local inhabitants and can oversee all these plans, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I support the powerful plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine). The White Paper says in paragraph 5:
The Government are equally determined to return power to those people who should exercise decisions locally.
Yet in the Clause my right hon. Friend is deliberately stripping these people of power which they have exercised in most cases very effectively.
Brighton, with its long and proud record in local government, is being stripped of its major powers and is being reduced greatly in its effectiveness and influence upon local problems. Many seaside towns such as Brighton have special traffic problems. Brighton has millions of visitors each year. If the function of traffic management and control is to be removed from those with local experience and knowledge, this will operate greatly to the detriment of the people of Brighton and to the effectiveness of the town as a whole.
Brighton lives largely by its ability to attract visitors. If Brighton fails to do this, if it scares them away, it will become nothing short of a depressed area. Traffic problems, parking problems, and ancillary matters would be some of the things that would make people decide


not to take their holiday in Brighton or even to visit there.
Detailed local knowledge is necessary in dealing with traffic problems. With the best will in the world, the county authority will not have local knowledge. In too many cases the county authority will not care about the problems of towns like Brighton. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider the Amendments carefully and to think again about the operation of the Clause and its effect on seaside towns and elsewhere. The Clause as it stands is an administrative nonsense which will lead to chaos in some areas if effective powers with regard to traffic management and control are not in the hands of district councils such as Brighton.

Mr. Leadbitter: The House in this debate is crystallising its concern about a major matter affecting local government. Our remarks are focussed on Clause 183, but the fact that so many hon. Members on both sides are present at this hour should convince the Government that we are concerned about how best to allocate functions in local government.
We have listened to some excellent speeches by hon. Members opposite, beginning with that by the hon. Member for Essex. South-East (Sir Bernard Braine). Why were not those hon. Members so concerned on Second Reading? That is the stage at which the Government should have been warned and when the Department might have given the matter some consideration.

Sir Bernard Braine: I hope the hon. Member will be fair to me. I can fight only one battle at a time. I was concerned at that stage to preserve the ancient and historic county of Essex, and just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the wisdom, the magnanimity and the good sense to do the right thing there, I am hoping that tonight he will do the right thing on the matter now before us which concerns so many hon. Members.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member knows full well that I named him as one who made an excellent contribution. But if hon. Members failed to do the correct thing on Second Reading, they should remember that there is a Third Reading.

It has already been observed today in the discussion on local authority functions that the House voted against the Government on the disposal of services.
When the result of the Division was announced my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) asked what the Government intended to do about the matter when the Bill went to the House of Lords. The Secretary of State was so concerned at the result of the Division that he has spent a longer period here with us than at any other stage in the Bill. He did not answer my right hon. Friend but said that both sides would have to think further on the matter. If the vote on this Amendment goes against the Government, will the Secretary of State think more carefully about a similar request from my right hon. Friend, and undertake not to seek to alter the Bill in the House of Lords?
I now come to the Clause. [Interruption.] If hon. Members have come here tonight to express their concern about local government functions they should be prepared to listen for as long as the argument has to be forced upon the Government. Or is their concern synthetic? If their concern is synthetic—[Hon. Members: "Get on with it."] If hon. Members wish to delay me by shouting, I have plenty of time in which to make my speech. It seems odd that the Secretary of State will not listen to what has already been said about local pride. I have served in local government for 14 years. I know that Conservative, Labour and Independent councillors have been able to take pride in their work because they had something to do and they were able to see the fruits of their work. There was a close affiliation between local government as the administrative body and the people. If the functions of local authorities are taken away as the Government intend, there is no point in talking, as the Government talk, about encouraging them to take an interest in what is happening. The right kind of men and women will not be produced to represent districts on their councils if they have nothing but the dustbin functions.
1.45 a.m.
Here we take away the highway authority functions that the councils already have. We are saying in the Bill that the districts will be able to look after the


footpaths, the bridleways, and the roads in the urban areas which are not trunk roads or classified roads, and that they will beable to mend them at the public expense. That is all they have to do. We are losing the opportunity of giving to the new districts which have the population, the capacity and the rateable value to provide the services required to meet the needs of the people they know best. Therefore, the opportunity to integrate planning, transport services, car parking facilities, and highways is being lost, to the detriment of local Government.
The Government should listen with care to the contributions from both sides of the House and think again how best to give the local authorities what they have been able to do for many years. The case has been made out. The Clause has been described as an administrative nonsense by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). The Bill itself is an administrative nonsense. It is a hotch-potch. It has been turned inside out, with little bits of additional responsibility given to the local authorities and some given away. There is no cohesion, no harmonisation of the services of local government as we understand it. The Bill is the result of a lack of consultation with the people who know about local government.

Mr. Peter Maker: The contribution that we have just heard, from the hon. Member for The Hartlepools(Mr. Leadbitter), did not rise to the level of what had been until he intervened a serious and high-level debate.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), who made an admirable contribution, that the Bill as it stands causes difficulties in any area, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) has pointed out, for a town like Blackpool the difficulties are even greater. A town with 8 million visitors a year must have entirely different policies on traffic management, yellow line regulations, pedestrian crossings, traffic signs and so on from those of other areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East referred to the key rôle that the highways department of a local authority so often plays in the whole complex of the organisation of the local authority.

That is even more important in a town like Blackpool, where it is intimately connected with many of the municipal enterprises, not least the illuminations.
We had an assurance when we were debating the White Paper that the town would be able to retain control of its illuminations. If the changes recommended in these Amendments were made it would be easier for the Government to ensure that the promise is honoured. It is clear that in a town like Blackpool, as in other seaside towns, there must be a policy for all the things we have been talking about which is different from the policy which will be right for the rest of the county. The sensible course would be to accept these Amendments, or something on these lines.

Mr. W. Benyon: I hope that the House will reject these Amendments. All my experience in local government tells me it would be absolutely fatal if the highway function was divided along the lines indicated. Obviously, we all judge this from our own experience in local government or in our constituencies. Certainly the combination of boroughs and urban district councils in my part of the world would result in a scattered control which would produce a complete nonsense of highway planning. A more uneconomic and inefficient arrangement would be difficult to imagine. The Marshall Committee on highway maintenance made the point that it needs a population of roughly 200,000 to get improvements in efficiency carried out to the best possible degree.
There is also the problem of the different districts. To give an example from my constituency, where the road runs from the north to the south of the county, through the county town of Aylesbury, the A413 will go through no fewer than three different districts. The problems involved here are obvious. Secondly, if the maintenance function is bad, then the division of the contruction function will be even worse. When we need teams of highly qualified experts in bridge designing, soil survey and so on it is impossible to do this efficiently if it is divided between the districts.
As to the combination of the structure plan and the local plan, the local plan will be decided district by district, whereas the implementation of the highways


pattern must be done across the board in the first tier, with overall control there. I hope for these reasons that the House will reject the Amendments.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I support what has been said about these Amendments. The points have been well made that the weakness in the Clause is the attempt to isolate or separate traffic and highway functions from other functions which, quite properly, are vested in the district councils. There is in particular the weakness whereby town planning is separated from highway management. The establishment of general development areas is separated from highway management. These things should be integrated in the district authority.
There is a further point which certainly has affected my constituency, and possibly others, and that is in relation to industrial development. In my constituency the borough of Llanelli is a highway authority and the rural district council of Llanelli is not. The highway authority for that is Carmarthen. Sometime ago the borough thought it had acquired a tenant for a factory in the borough. The access to the factory was mainly in the area of the rural district council. It was thought that the access road to the factory should be made up to make the factory more attractive to the prospective tenant. This involved the borough in negotiations with the county authorities, but Carmarthen is reluctant to make up these roads for many reasons. So there was prolonged negotiation between the borough and the county on this matter, with the result that the tenant was kept waiting and the whole object of letting the factory was in abeyance for a considerable time.
So, again, the development of industrial estates would be facilitated if the districts were given these powers of traffic management, so that they did not have to go back all the time to the county authority and have this duplication of negotiations which causes delays when speed is sometimes of the essence.
I should have thought that this Clause does not contribute to the efficiency of local government; indeed, it creates inefficiency. Further, it does not contribute to the democratisation of local government—if that is the right way to

express it—because wherever possible these powers should be concentrated in the smaller body, which is more closely associated with the people. In the case of something as vital as traffic and highway management, the body nearer to the community should be the body that is given the greater powers. For that reason I support the Amendment.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should have thought that on principle my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was right. The principle is one of dual authority, the idea being that the main strategy should lie with the premier power, and the carrying out of certain functions by agency or other means should devolve on the district council.
Earlier this week my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton), after lengthy debate on the matter and with the assistance of the Minister obtained an undertaking under Clause 101 that we should have the opportunity to devolve, by agency arrangements, various powers which would provide certain functions for the district councils.
As I understand it there would be abundant opportunity under Amendment No. 435 for a highway scheme such as is envisaged in the Amendments to be carried into effect with the consent of the Minister under these provisions. It seems to me that the district council would be able to solicit the attention of the county in order to carry out a highways scheme which could be prepared in order to designate those highways within a district council and to say that those functions should go to the local highway authority, the local district authority, in terms of their nature and extent, and should specify the procedures for the discharge of those functions. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would and could—if he wished—under the appeal provisions that he will lay, make whatever regulations he thought fit to provide for the content of such schemes.
This is a new point. I do not apologise for raising it now. If I could be persuaded by the Minister that the purpose of his acceding to the wishes of the House earlier, in Clause 101, was to enable him


to be able to provide, in respect of certain areas of the country where there are large district councils, that they would be able to have effective traffic management schemes, it would go a long way towards satisfying me on this Amendment. I do not wish to argue further what has been admirably debated already because it is self-evident that an area like Thanet, which, incidentally, has a population of 125,000, which rises to 300,000 in the summer, has always had not merely to consider the question of illumination and off-street parking but, of course, has had to provide appropriate parking for conferences, both small and large, and many other matters of that kind, and it is not going to pass over to the county traffic management and matters of that nature.
2.0 a.m.
However, if we are amply covered by the assurance the Minister has already given, and we can negotiate with the county over all of these matters, that will go some way to help us. We certainly do not want to interfere with the overall strategy or planning of the highways throughout the county of Kent. That is not what this Amendment seeks to do, as I understand it, in any sense at all. It merely wishes for some control over local design and construction, believing that the whole general field of what is commonly called traffic management ought to be retained in certain areas, particularly if those areas have expertise and experience. Finally, on the point of staff, we shall have to continue to maintain the type of skilled staff which is necessary for those functions which belong properly to coastal towns.
Thus, whether we do it, if I may say, by the rather more brutal method of voting the Government down, or whether we can be effectively met by the attractive way in which Minister dealt with Clause 101, I shall be glad to hear.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I have no doubt that in the interests of efficiency, economy and service to the public it would have been much better to have stuck to the original proposal in the White Paper, to the effect that highways, traffic and transport should be the sole responsibility of the county councils. On the other hand, I quite appreciate that many boroughs expressed reservations

about that proposal, and, in consequence, my right hon. Friend thought it right to make certain amendments prior to the publication of the Bill, and, indeed, further Amendments since then. With the situation he now proposes I am prepared to go along.
I think I detect in the minds of those who have been supporting this Amendment certain fears in relation to county control in the future. It seems to me that they are forgetting two things. First, they are forgetting that all the old boroughs will have their representatives on the new counties. Take, for example, Blackpool. Blackpool will be in the county of Lancashire, accompanied by Burnley and Preston, and it seems to me, therefore, that the voice of the urban areas will be very well heard from the representatives of those areas.

Mr. Blaker: I am sorry if I failed to make my point. My whole point was that the needs of Blackpool are entirely different from those of Burnley or Preston.

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that the representatives of Blackpool will be able to make their voice heard very well.
In addition, there is a second point, which is that there will still be in existence the expertise of the officers who have been until now, and who will in future be, particularly concerned with the problems which may be specific to Blackpool, or specific to Burnley, or specific to any other area.
So I really do not understand the fears and worries which are being expressed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I have no doubt that the Clause as drafted, with my right hon. Friend's Amendment, will cope with the situation perfectly adequately.

Mr. Peter Walker: I want first to make one or two points which affect the Government's attitude to these Amendments.
I took no part in the Committee stage. However, I pay tribute to the constructive approach which the Opposition adopted in Committee and to the reception which they accorded to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development. I think that we can claim that throughout the Bill we have endeavoured to listen to the constructive


suggestions and Amendments which have been put forward and that we have improved the Bill substantially as a result. I make no apology for that. There is no question of Government weakness in doing it in the case of a major reform cutting across party principles. It was a completely correct approach.
At the beginning of the Bill, having consulted local authorities throughout the country, this Government decided to have a two-tier system of local government. In coming to that decision we considered carefully the principles upon which we should pursue it. Listening to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) and hearing the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) saying how desperate it was for Watford to have such powers, I was prompted to remind them that under the Redcliffe-Maud proposals and those of the previous Government both Hartlepools and Watford would have had the powers of parish councils—

Mr. Leadbitter: I agree with the Secretary of State, because I disagreed with those proposals.

Mr. Walker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was very wise to do so. I appreciate his support for the much better system that we have produced.
As regards the two-tier system, I outlined the principle that we intended to endeavour to put at district level all those functions which could reasonably be maintained at district level and that we should put at county level only those functions which were better operated and organised over a larger area. It was our conclusion that there was a range of functions—education, social services, strategic planning, and transportation in all its forms—where there was a considerable advantage in their being organised over a wider area.
This debate has been of a high standard, and many understandable arguments have been advanced. But I must remind the House that the district councils have had tremendous problems. Many have coped with them perfectly well. However, taking transportation as an example, the problems of the past are nothing compared with those which are about to affect the country. A dramatic change is about to take place.
We are reforming local government for perhaps decades to come. Therefore we are putting into operation a system which will cope with the problems of the coming decades. Few councils have fully estimated the basic effect of increasing the number of cars on our roads from the present 12 million to the estimated 22 million by the end of this decade. When one begins to project those problems, one recognises the need for dealing with transportation problems over a much wider area, and by that I mean not just highway problems but transportation problems in their totality.
A district does not generate the majority of the transport which goes in the district. Districts vary, of course. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) have projected massive inflows of traffic into their popular seaside resorts. But those inflows do not just have to be coped within Blackpool and Brighton. They create enormous problems on routes leading to those resorts. A similar situation arises when motorways are opened. Suddenly whole areas are affected on their secondary roads by the impact of a motorway access to a district. Therefore, there is a fast changing position. The volume of traffic will be of such immense size and magnitude that new and gigantic problems will face those who have to deal with transportation questions.
I suggest it is important that our major cities should take part in a system of local government where they have an influence not only over transport decisions within their own districts, but, for the first time, upon the authorities in the surrounding areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) takes a tremendous part in serving the best interests of that city, but for Norwich to have a greater influence—

Mr. Wallace: And the other Member.

Mr. Walker: Yes, both hon. Members. Under these proposals, for the first time elected representatives in Norwich will have a say and an influence over a much wider area.
I should point out the damage that the Amendments would do to the metropolitan areas. The Amendments provide


for the districts within metropolitan areas—our major conurbations—to have the possibility of these separate powers. I think that anyone looking at the transportation problems of the major metropolitan areas would realise the many dangers and tremendous waste of resources which would be involved. I am genuinely concerned about the whole position of resources in terms of skilled manpower, which is limited.
Several times in the debate Professor Colin Buchanan has been quoted. I have not consulted him on this Clause, but from what I have heard Professor Buchanan say on transportation problems I doubt very much whether he would be in favour of these powers lying with districts. I have now asked him to head the new faculty to train the transport planners of the future. I assure the House that, looking at the problem from my Department's point of view, one thing we lack in this country is a high number of qualified, trained staff to meet the total transport problems with which we are faced. To try to fragment those skills over 300 districts would be a considerable mistake.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) understandably produced the argument about the proximity of planning powers to these powers. I recognise the association. The development plans will be prepared by the counties, but I should point out that there is one major difference. Whereas in planning one is primarily talking about the physical planning of a diversity of resources, many of which are not public expenditure, in terms of transportation and highway policies one is talking about massive decision-taking over public expenditure.
One reason why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press the Amendment is that developments are likely to take place in Government thinking on this topic. Certainly I have come to the conclusion that one of the mistakes of the past system, as operated by all Governments, has been that we have provided from central Government a diversity of grants for transport in all its forms—certain percentage grants for certain categories of roads, different percentage grants for other categories of

roads, bus grants, subsidies for uneconomic railway lines, and such matters—and sometimes these fixed grants have created a position where local authorities have often give the wrong priorities in their transport investment to enjoy a higher level of grant which is available for a particular type of transport facility.
2.15 a.m.
It is for that reason that my Department is moving to the concept of negotiating a new block grant system whereby we shall have a look at the total transportation problems of an area and examine the priorities. Perhaps there would be much more provided for public railway and bus transport in certain localities, or much more provided for ring roads or urban roads in other localities. It is only when we start to look at the total problem over a wider area than districts that we can bring in a system of Government financing that will in any way meet the enormous challenge that will face this country in transportation problems.
Therefore, I urge the House to realise that whilst these problems have been coped with in the past, some districts coping better than others, the problem now facing us transcends anything which we have previously contemplated.
There are one or two basic objections which I must put before the House regarding the Amendments. I do not criticise the general requirement and feeling of my hon. Friends in endeavouring to seek more activity by districts which they feel have been more active and successful in the past. However, I ask them to realise the type of work and the waste of limited resources involved in developing the type of highway schemes which they are suggesting, and the months of haggling that would be likely to take place between every district council and the county council in preparing the scheme. The haggling would not be a once-for-all operation, because, as the Amendments are worded, these schemes could be constantly revised. They would have to be revised as new problems and new road systems were required and emerged. A great deal of skilled manpower, which is very limited, would be taken up in discussing the schemes. It is fairly likely that there would be many disagreements.
It is suggested that these disagreements should be referred to the Secretary of State. Of course, what is meant in practice is that they would be referred to a large number of officials in my Department. Those officials would have to go and examine the work of the district as opposed to the county upon particular aspects, and arbitrate between them. If the arbitration went in favour of the district, that would be resented by the county, and vice versa. That would be a continuing factor of dispute.
I am perfectly prepared to utilise—and I want the counties to do so—the expertise in this work where it exists in the districts. Clause 101 makes that provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) asked me whether the new Clause which we will endeavour to introduce in another place will cover that aspect, and, of course, it will. It will mean that during the period 1973 to April, 1974, if there is a dispute in a district with an expertise in part of the highway function which it feels would be of benefit to the county, it can on an agency basis put forward the possibility of such utilisation. The advantage of using that provision is that all disputes end in April, 1974. I am anxious to see that when we have completed local government reform and the authorities come in on 1st April, 1974, they will do so with clear-cut separate functions, and that thereafter we do not continue with the haggling and disputes which have taken place between counties and districts in the past and have done so much harm to local government.
I assure my hon. Friends that, in carrying out the provisions of Clause 101 and the new Clause, it is the intention of my Department to issue a circular giving advice as to how the agency system should be operated. In the preparation of that circular—we will discuss this with the local authority associations—I am quite certain, for example, as far as the specific and perhaps unique problems of the seaside towns are concerned, that within the discussions with the local authority associations, any agency arrangements which can be operated by the seaside towns could come within the provisions of such a circular on the operation of Clause 101.
But the basic concept of being able to negotiate with one authority covering a wide area, an authority that can assemble the skills required in traffic engineering, in highway construction, in the overall application of public transport and in the relationship of the roads system with public transport, while it may not have been needed in the period between the last local government reform and today, is bound to be needed in the decades which lie ahead.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We have had a fascinating debate and a fascinating reply from the Secretary of State. He is right to call attention to the wider issues. It is wrong to get ourselves immersed in the narrow, parochial issues, but what is the logic of what he has said? It is that the whole basis of the Bill is mistaken, which is what many of us have always said. The only answer is the regional approach, and the longer we have debated the Bill the more that fact has been borne in upon people. The examination of the broader issues to which he rightly called attention needs the regional approach.
The right hon. Gentleman himself regretted the haggling that would take place between county and district if the Amendments were made. But if his argument were true it would apply equally to the development plan schemes which he has agreed to be necessary to get joint agreement between county and district upon the particular form of a development plan for a certain area. One can quote case after case. It is inherent in the two-tier solution that there will be argument, and the passing of the Bill will not end argument. That is part of our anxiety.
Far from the Bill providing a really constructive and long-term solution to many major problems of local government, it falls far short of doing so. It merely retains the argument which will go on between the two tiers almost inevitably. Sooner or later, we shall be forced to reach out to the wider solution which is the only way in which we can deal with the problems of the future to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention. The Amendments are an attempt to make the best of a bad job, to bring as much harmony and rational thinking


as possible into a difficult situation. Where the choice had been made of the two-tier system, this is the conflict we are inevitably facing.
We believe on this side—and indeed in this House, because only one speech took a different view—that the Amendments offer not a solution but at least an improvement on the Minister's suggestions.
We understand that in this whole issue there cannot be any bouquets for Ministers. This has been evident from the beginning and we have had passionate pleas from hon. Members with detailed information derived from the problems of their own areas. All have been seeking to reconcile the need for strategy to be the responsibility of a wider authority with the practical working out of detailed schemes in their own area to be the responsibility of their own local, or more local, area, remembering that the district council is considerably larger than the district councils we have been used to in the past.
This has been the argument. It has not been suggested that broad strategy should be the responsibility of the district, but rather that it should be the responsibility—we cannot escape it—of the county. Rather, we wish that broad responsibility should be at a regional rather than a county level. We have explained this ad nauseam.
Let us take the choice open to us. Nothing proposed in this set of Amendments—nor did the Secretary of State suggest it—destroys the concept of broad strategic functions being in the hands of the county.
The Secretary of State suggested that there might be fragmenting of skills. I do not see that that needs to be so at all. If there were an attempt to work out a transport scheme on the same lines as the Government are agreed to on the need for a development plan scheme, these problems would be solved. A reservoir of detailed specialist skills in broad strategic planning and transport and so on could be called upon. There is no

reason why not. So that that is not a valid argument.

If the Government proposals stand up, the districts are not going to be able to use economically and logically the staffs they have, with experience and knowledge of local problems.

I would have thought that in an unsatisfactory general picture, which I make no bones about, the Amendments proposed offered the best possible solution. The view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who spoke from both sides so strongly and effectively should be accepted.

The Secretary of State said—and it is true—that the Government have paid attention to many matters raised in debate on the Bill. The Bill, as drafted, was different in some respects from the White Paper. The Bill, in Committee became somewhat different from what it was on Second Reading, and on Report there is a mass of new material which shifts the balance.

We do not necessarily object, but it shows the difficulty the Government are finding in trying to establish some kind of balance while insisting on maintaining the crucial defect of the two-tier system. This is bringing in its train many of the problems which they are facing in respect of not only the Amendments under discussion but a large number of other Amendments which are bound to have consequences in another place and outside when the Bill has been passed.

I make this appeal in all sincerity. We know that these measures are bound to be divisive within our own ranks. We are obliged to do our best to express the views of those with experience in these matters and to arrive at as satisfactory a solution as possible. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will reflect in the Division Lobby the views which they have clearly expressed.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 129.

Division No. 304.]
AYES
[2.31 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Buchan, Norman
Cohen, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Concannon, J. D.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bowden, Andrew
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dalyell, Tam




Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prescott, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Simeons, Charles


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Forrester, John
Marsden, F.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hannan, William (G'gow,Maryhill)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John
Taverne, Dick


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Urwin, T. W.


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon
Whitehead, Phillip


Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur
Mr Ernest Armstrong and


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. John Golding


NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Awdry, Daniel
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Quennell. Miss J. M.


Balniel, Lord
Hastings, Stephen
Raison, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hiley, Joseph
Redmond, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Body, Richard
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Boscawen, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sharples, Sir Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Spence, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Luce, R. N.
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Farr, John
Madel, David
Trew, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Waddington, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
Ward, Dame Irene


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Normanton, Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hn. George


Grieve, Percy
Osborn, John



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Gummer, Selwyn J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Gurden, Harold
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Percival, Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 704, in page 121, line 36, at beginning insert—
(6) Where any functions have been delegated by the Secretary of State to a county council under subsection (1) of section 10 of the Highways Act 1959 (maintenance and improvement of trunk roads, etc.) or the Secretary of State has entered into an agreement with a county council under subsection (4) of that section

(construction of trunk roads, etc.) the county council may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into arrangements with the council of a district for the carrying out by the district council, in accordance with the arrangements, of such of the delegated functions or, as the case may be, of the functions to which the agreement relates as may be specified in the arrangements; but no such arrangements shall provide for a district council to carry out any functions with respect to a trunk road or other land outside their


district except with the consent of the council of the district in which the road or other land is situated.
(7) In this section and in Schedule 20 to this Act, and in any other enactment referring to the powers of district councils under subsection (2) above, the expressions 'maintenance' and 'maintain', where used with respect to the powers of district councils under that subsection in relation to highways maintainable at the public expense, shall be construed not in accordance with section 295 of the Highways Act 1959but as referring to the carrying out of such operations as may be specified for the purposes of subsection (2) above by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and a statutory instrument containing regulations under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) Subject to subsection (7) above.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 20

MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN HIGHWAYS BU DISTRICT COUNCILS

Amendments made: No. 705, in page 281, line 30, after 'above', insert 'or paragraph 4(2) below'.

No. 706, in page 281, line 32, at end insert—
4.—(1) Without prejudice to paragraph 3(2) above, the powers of a district council under section 183(2) above shall cease to be exercisable with respect to any highway—
(a) on such day as may be agreed between the district council and the county council who are the local highway authority for the highway; or
(b) six months after the receipt by that county council of a notice from the district council stating the intention of the district council to cease to exercise those powers;
and any such agreement or notice may relate either to such highway or highways as may be specified in the agreement or notice or to all the highways in respect of which the powers of the district council are exercisable at the time the agreement is made, or, as the case may be, the notice is served.
(2) Where the powers of a district council under section 183(2) above have ceased to be exercisable with respect to a highway by virtue of an agreement or notice under sub-paragraph (1) above, those powers shall not, except with the consent of the county council who are the highway authority for that highway, again become exercisable with respect to that highway at any time within the period of ten years beginning with the day on which the powers cease to be so exercisable; but if, at any time after the expiry of that period or, with the consent of the county council, before the expiry, the district council intend again to exercise those powers with respect to that highway, paragraphs 2 and 3(1) above shall not apply and those powers shall become

exercisable at the expiry of the period of six weeks beginning with the date on which the county council who are the highway authority receive notice of the district council's intention under paragraph 1 above.
(3) If, by virtue of paragraph 3(2) or sub-paragraph (1) above, the powers of a district council under section 183(2) above cease to be exercisable with respect to any highway, the cessation shall not affect the continued existence, on and after the day on which the powers cease to be so exercisable, of any rights or liabilities of the district council in respect of the highway which are in existence immediately before that day.

No. 707, in page 281, line 35, leave out from 'above' to 'and' in line 36 and insert
'are for the time being exercisable'.

No. 709, in page 281, line 38, at end insert—
(2) A copy of any list of highways prepared by a district council under sub-paragraph (1) above and of all amendments for the time being made thereto shall be furnished by the district council to the county council who are the highway authority for the highways concerned.

No. 708, in page 281, line 41, after '3(2)', insert 'or paragraph 4(1)'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 21

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO HIGHWAYS

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 717, in page 285, line 14, leave out from 'section' to end of line 15.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 719, 718, 1108, 689, 710, 711, 712, 715, 716, 690, 713 and 714.

Mr. Speed: These are consequential and small drafting Amendments. Amendment No. 717 is concerned with Section 30 of the Highways Act, 1959, relating to the making up of new footpaths and bridleways. Paragraph 10(2) of the Schedule inserts a new subsection 4(A) into Section 30 and provides that a local authority may carry out works which it would be the duty of the highway authority to do and recover its expenses from the highway authority.
The Amendment deletes the provision allowing a local authority to recover its


expenses. This would be a departure from present practice under which a local authority may, if it wishes, carry out works which a highway authority would normally do, but for which it may not claim expenses from the highway authority.
Amendment No. 719 is concerned with Section 38 of the Highways Act, 1959. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 21 amends Section 38 of that Act, which concerns highways maintainable at the public expense. The effect of the paragraph as it stands is to provide that where a local housing authority carries out housing operations inside its own area, the liability to maintain the roads vests in the county council whether or not the council is satisfied that the road has been properly constructed. The present situation is that no local highway authority has to take over liability for a road unless it is satisfied with its construction. It is desired to amend the Bill so that this will continue to be so after 1st April, 1974.
Amendment No. 718 is purely and simply a drafting Amendment.
Amendment No. 1108 concerns the existing provision in the Schedule which enables both district and county councils to make orders extinguishing or diverting public paths under Sections 110 and 111 of the Highways Act, 1959. The Amendment ensures that a district council and the county council for the area in which the district lies consult one another before either makes an order affecting a path in respect of which they have concurrent order making powers. The provision as drafted in paragraph 32(1)(a) does not make this clear.
Amendment No. 689 concerns the wording which applies the sub-paragraph only to a path which acts both as a footpath and a bridleway. The Amendment proposes to substitute the word "or" for the word "and" so that Section 112 of the Highways Act, 1959, applies to all sorts of public paths.
Amendment No. 710 is connected with paths and bridleways. It concerns the phrase
which is a footpath or bridleway, and
and omits this phrase, the effect being to extend the district council's powers under Section 124 of the Highways Act,

1959, to unclassified urban roads which it is maintaining.
Amendments Nos. 711 and 712 are purely drafting Amendments.
Amendments Nos. 715 and 716 provide that where a county council takes over a road after 1st April, 1974, any drain used in connection with it on the take over date may continue to be used for that purpose by the county council.
Amendment No. 690 is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 718, in page 289, line 17, leave out
'council or of a community'

No. 1108, in page 289, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:
'within their area without prior consultation with the other council in whose area that part of the footpath or bridleway is situated'.

No. 689, in page 289, line 38, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 710, in page 291, line 23, leave out
'which is a footpath or bridleway, and'.

No. 711, in page 291, line 35, leave out 'subsections (2) and (3) of'.

No. 712, in page 291, line 46, at end add
'or, alternatively, if the street is a metropolitan road, the Greater London Council'

No. 715, in page 298, line 27, leave out from first 'the' to 'for' in line 28 and insert
'word "was" there shall be substituted the word "is" '.

No. 716, in page 298, line 29, leave out from 'and' to end of line 30 and insert:
'for the words from "the date on which" onwards there shall be substituted the words "1st April 1974 or, if the highway in question first becomes maintainable at the public expense after that date, the date on which it first becomes so maintainable" '.

No. 690, in page 300, line 13, after 'a'. insert 'separate parish council or'.

No. 713, in page 301, line 38, leave out 'for subsection (2) there shall be substituted' and insert:
'after subsection (2) there shall be added'.

No. 714, in page 301, line 40, leave out '(2)'and insert '(3)'.—[Mr. Speed.]

Clause 185

COMMONS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1173, in page 123, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert:
'(2) For subsection (5) of section 8 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 (council in which unclaimed land is to be vested) there shall be substituted the following subsections: —
(5) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the local authority in which any land is to be vested under this section is" '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Government Amendment No. 1174.

Mr. Page: The effect of these Amendments is to enable a parish or community council which comes into existence after a town or village green in its area has earlier been vested in the district council under Section 8 of the Commons Registration Act, 1965, to require the land to be transferred to itself in place of the district council in any case where the new parish or community council would have been the recipient authority if it had existed when the land was originally vested.
2.45 a.m.
In Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) moved an Amendment to provide for such a transfer to happen automatically on the creation of the new parish or community council. My hon. Friend withdrew that Amendment after I had explained that it would possibly be inconvenient to make this an automatic transfer but that we would look at the question of the transfer if the parish or community council so requested. This is what we have introduced in these Amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I hope that the House will accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 1174, in page 123, line 37, at end insert:
"(6) Where—
(a) any land has been vested in a district council in accordance with subsection (5)(b) of this section, and
(b) after the land has been so vested a parish or community council comes into being for the parish or community in which

the land is situated (whether by the establishment of a new council or by adding that parish or community to a group of parishes or communities for which a council has already been established),
then, if the circumstances are such that, had the direction under subsection (3) of this section been given at a time after the parish or community council had come into being, the land would in accordance with subsection (5)(a) of this section have been vested in the parish or community council, the district council shall, if requested to do so by the parish or community council, direct the registration authority to register the parish or community council, in place of the district council, as the owner of the land; and the registration authority shall comply with any such direction.
(7) The council of any district, parish or community affected by any registration made in pursuance of subsection (6) above shall pay to the other of those councils so affected such sum, if any, as may be agreed between them to be appropriate to take account of any sums received or to be received, or any expenditure incurred or to be incurred, in respect of the land concerned, and, in default of agreement, the question of what sum, if any, is appropriate for that purpose shall be determined by arbitration".—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 187

EDUCATION

Amendments made: No. 1109, in page 125, line 29, leave out from 'the' to 'or' in line 31 and insert 'parish or community council'.

No. 1186, in page 125, line 33, after 'is', insert 'an area in England which is'.

No. 1187, in page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'(c) where the said area comprises two or more of the following, a parish, a community or an area in England which is not within a parish and is not situated in a metropolitan county—
(i) the parish or community council or councils, if any;
(ii) in the case of a parish which has no council, the parish meeting;
(iii) in the case of an area which is a community having no community council or which is in England and is not within a parish, the council of the district concerned acting jointly'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 188

HOUSING

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I beg to move Amendment No. 582, in page 126, line 20, leave out 'in England'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we take Government Amendments Nos. 586, 1037, 583, 584 and 585.
The purpose of the Amendments is to withdraw the separate Welsh provisions for housing in the Bill at present. The effect will be that in Wales, as in England, county councils will have certain reserve powers and that in both countries the default powers of the Secretaries of State will be removed.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 22

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO HOUSING

Amendments made: No. 586, in page 303, line 37, leave out from '171' to end of line 14 on page 304 and insert:
'to 176 (powers available in the event of default by local authorities) shall cease to have effect'.

No. 1037, in page 304, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Clause 189

RESERVE POWERS OF ENGLISH COUNTY COUNCILS IN RELATION TO HOUSING

Amendments made: No. 583, in page 126, line 33, leave out 'in England'.

No. 584, in page 126, line 35, leave out from 'section' to end of line 37.

No. 585, in page 127, line 28, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Schedule 23

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS CONFERRING SOCIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS

Mr. Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 1006, in page 305, leave out lines 11 to 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss also Government Amendments Nos. 1007 and 1008.

Mr. Speed: These Amendments are all consequential on Amendment No. 320, which was made earlier this week, and which secured that, subject to certain conditions, the option to choose between district auditor and private or authorised auditors should be extended to all county and district councils.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 1111, in page 306, line 8, leave out from 'words' to end of line 12 and insert:
' "the council of a county or county borough" there shall be substituted the words "a council which is a local authority for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970" '.

No. 1112, in page 306, line 16, leave out from 'words' to end of line 20 and insert:
'from "of the county" to "situated" there shall be substituted the words "which for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 is the local authority for the area in which the home is situated" '.

No. 1113, in page 306, line 27, leave out from 'words' to end of line 32 and insert:
' "the council which is the local authority for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and" '.

No. 1114, in page 306, line 35, leave out '(other than a large burgh)'.

No. 1007, in page 306, leave out lines 49 and 50.

No. 1008, in page 307, leave out lines 5 and 6.

No. 1115, in page 309, line 29, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 32 and insert:
'for the words "local health authority", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "local social services authority" '.

No. 1017, in page 309, leave out lines 45 to 47.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Bill (as amended in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

COLNE VALLEY (WATER SUPPLIES)

2.50 a.m.

Mr. David Clark: I wish to raise tonight what may appear to be a local problem but it is one which I feel has much more significance at national level. It concerns the abstraction of water under the terms of the Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1965.
I pay tribute to the local newspapers for the way they have tried to highlight the problem. They have approached the matter in a crusading attitude. They were right to do so because local people and myself are in no way opposed to the abstraction of water. We recognise that there is a need for water and we appreciate that some of the water which is taken from the Colne Valley by the Huddersfield Corporation Waterworks comes back to the valley.
In considering the matter it is necessary to look back to 1965 to the Act which went through Parliament virtually unopposed. That raises certain difficulties which I shall deal with later. My attention was drawn to the problem when earlier this year I received notification from my constituents that certain rivers in the constituency were running dry. I visited the scene and saw for myself that streams in certain very attractive areas which had been traditional picnic places for the whole of the Colne Valley and for Huddersfield had dried up completely. Like most of the local people I was horrified. I began to make inquiries and I was even more surprised to find that under the 1965 Act Huddersfield Corporation had the power and the authority to take virtually any water it wanted out of the streams in the Colne Valley as long as it maintained a certain compensatory flow downstream at Marsden.
That means that the industrial part of the valley is supplied with water but that the more attractive recreational and amenity areas are devoid of it. On further investigation I discovered certain difficulties, not only in the specific sense but in the general sense also. The extremely complicated art of the abstraction of water involves the expenditure of millions of £s and is necessarily technical.
When the scheme was discussed it involved the building of a dam and the M62 motorway in the Scammonden Valley. It was a glamorous project and all attention was focused upon it. The more technical aspects were not aired at the time. The then clerk of the council, Mr. J. W. Lomas, was reported to have said:
When the Bill was published no indication was given by the Corporation or its officials that these cloughs would become virtually dry as a result of the abstraction of water from moorland streams.
This point of view is supported by various other people who were on the council at the time.
Is the Minister satisfied that in technical Measures of this nature enough attention is given to the far-reaching effects on the amenities of the area in question? Is enough attention given to trying to explain them to the general public? Is the Minister satisfied that both in the present case and similar cases enough general publicity is given? For example, in connection with the Huddersfield Corporation Act there was never any public meeting within the Colne Valley to explain to the local residents what the effect of the Measure would be Hence the surprise in 1972 at the fact that the streams were running dry.
The tragedy is that we have only just seen the beginning of the effects, because many of the other cloughs are not yet affected. Could something be done to try to persuade authorities like Huddersfield Corporation to hold meetings of those affected. The Corporation held a meeting for its own ratepayers, although afterwards as a matter of courtesy the chairman of the water board met the Colne Valley residents. The publicity obviously was somewhat limited.
Is the Minister assured that the spring water supply in the area is not affected and will not be affected? I think that about 22 of the cloughs in the vicinity will be affected, but not all are affected now. Several of my constituents have written to me saying that since the corporation started its operations their spring water supplies have dried up. It is an outlying area where it is not practical at present to provide a piped mains supply in every case. The problem is causing a great deal of concern not only to those who claim that they are affected now


but to all those who feel that they could be affected.
Section 41 of the Act specifically says that
the Corporation shall have regard—(a) to the preservation for the public of the natural beauty of the area in which those works are situate and the enjoyment of the area by the public".
That section might have been expected to protect the environment and amenities of the area, but, unfortunately, it is without teeth. I understand that there is no one who can force the corporation to pay regard to the natural beauty. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the local planning authority, which may well be the Colne Valley Council, could do so.
Is the Minister satisfied about the methods used to make available the plans of the scheme? The plans were submitted in 1964 and were laid in this House, but there have been certain changes since then. I understand that some of those changes have been made by variations and licences issued by the river authority. There has been considerable difficulty because I feel that the plans available in the House are not the plans which the Huddersfield Corporation is now working to. The plans available at the local council offices are not the 1964 plans but other plans which I believe were deposited in 1969.
One last technical point. Is the Minister sure that the Huddersfield Corporation has got the necessary works order—I believe that is the technical jargon—to construct the latest works which were embodied in the new scheme and for which it obtained licences in June, 1970? Will he also comment on whether he feels that the environment has been looked after in the way it should have been? There is a good deal of local concern. I had a meeting with representatives of the Colne Valley Council, with the Huddersfield Corporation Waterworks chairman and the engineer. They were most helpful and I believe that we have an agreement about Eastergate. We were given an assurance, and they said that it would be put in writing, that they would regulate the flow at Eastergate except at times of dire emergency. If this agreement is kept—it can only be a gentleman's agreement—it would solve the problem at Eastergate.
There are much more serious problems at the Drop Clough complex, which is a traditional open air space for picnickers. There are two or three footpaths in the area. When I went there last Sunday afternoon there were a number of people there enjoying themselves. The difficulty is that Huddersfield Corporation has erected some rather high fences in the area and padlocked the gate, with the result that if the local people go picnicking by the river they have to climb over the fence, which I would not have thought was paying sufficient regard to the amenity and enjoyment of the area by the public, as the corporation is charged to do. Could the Minister bring pressure to bear on the corporation to consider the purchase of some of this land and turning it into a country park? This might be a way of trying to give something back to the community in exchange for the water that has been taken from the area.
There are two warnings given about the quality of water in the annual report of the Yorkshire River Authority, at page 37. The first is about effluent and the other is about the need to keep water higher upstream. It says:
Those responsible for developing upland sources for public water supplies, must accept that the convenient availability of water in the upper reaches of river systems is not the only or the most important criterion, but that in the future full regard must be had not only to conventional calculations based on arbitrary though now almost sacrosanct factions of the safe yield of gathering grounds but also to the nature and volume of the effluents, however good their quality, which are discharged to the system lower down.
It seems that the scheme adopted in the Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1965, directly contradicts that because it is taking too much water from the head of the valley and there is the danger that the body of the stream will not be sufficient to cater for industrial effluent further down. I welcome the Minister's comments on these points.

3.5 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark), not for the first time, has been diligent in the interests of his constituents in raising this important matter. He comes from a part of Yorkshire that


I know and regard as singularly attractive, and where these lovely upland streams lose their water it is understandable that people who go into the moors for picnics and to enjoy themselves should be concerned. It is all part of the increasing sensitivity of the public to environmental matters—a sensitivity that I welcome, for it assists my Department in the work that it is seeking to do.
The hon. Member has quite rightly said that the abstraction of water from the upper reaches of river systems is a matter of growing concern. We must stop taking our water supplies for granted. On the one hand, demand is rising very rapidly; on the other hand, supply is not increasing. Therefore, we shall have to husband our water resources with the greatest care, re-use water and look after it.
Water is becoming a rather precious raw material. It is too expensive to collect, transport and distribute any longer to be wantonly wasted or flushed away at the rate of two gallons every time a schoolgirl goes to the bathroom. On those general points the hon. Member and I are at one.
The heart of what the hon. Member said tonight revolves around the 1964–65 Private Act sponsored and promoted by the Huddersfield Corporation as a statutory water undertaker. The Huddersfield Corporation, in that capacity, is responsible for maintaining adequate supplies of water to a number of local authority districts, including the Colne Valley urban district, as well as its own area. It was in this connection that it promoted the Private Bill to develop a new source of supply. Its proposals involved constructing a dam in the Scammonden Valley to form a reservoir and a tunnel to divert water into the reservoir from streams in the Colne Valley catchment. I am sure that I carry the hon. Member with me in saying that the Scammonden Valley dam is a triumph of British engineering of which we can be proud, for it was designed to carry a section of the M62 motorway, and certain provision was made in the Bill for matters such as the apportionment of costs between the then Ministry of Transport and the corporation.
The hon. Member made a point about public meetings. I agree that very often

the public are not as diligent as they might be in looking at statutory notices in the newspapers. On occasions such matters may not be vigorously promoted. I regret it if it should have been the case that some of the hon. Member's constituents were unaware what the Bill's consequences might be. Nevertheless, the hon. Member would probably accept that the public have a responsibility to be vigilant in their own interest in these matters. As far as I am able to discover, the Huddersfield Corporation followed the proper procedures and advertised the objections in the proper manner.

Mr. David Clark: I take the point that the Minister is making. I do not quibble at the fact that legal requirements were strictly adhered to, but I quoted the clerk of the Colne Valley authority, who denies it. The chairman of the council says:
It was never mentioned that these beauty spots would be spoilt.
Local newspapers had no coverage at all of this, and it was not a matter which was discussed anywhere at any time in the area.

Mr. Griffiths: I must say from experience that people are very inclined, reaching back into the past, to say "We did not know about it at the time and we were not able to foresee the consequences." I must remind the public that in these matters they must be vigilant in their own interests, and particularly must local authorities be. I am sure the local authorities had this drawn to their attention at the time by the clerk, and they ought, in my view, to have had regard to these matters, which could affect their own constituents.
The Bill, at the time, was unopposed. It became the Huddersfield Corporation Act. Since then the dam has been built to divert water into the reservoir from streams in the Colne Valley catchment, and, as I understand it, is now in use.
The majority of the intakes for the abstraction of water from streams in the Colne Valley have also been completed. As the hon. Member will know, a substantial proportion of the yield from the new Scammonden reservoir is attributable to the diversion of water from the Colne Valley catchment.
The 1965 Act imposes requirements as to the discharge of compensation water in the Colne Valley, as the hon. Member said. I would remind him that failure by the corporation to supply compensation requirements is made an offence under the Act and is subject to penalties of fine on conviction. This being so, one must assume that the possible effect on the flows from the upper streams of granting these rights sought by the corporation to abstract water could not in any sense have been disregarded or overlooked by Parliament at the time, nor, indeed, by the promoters of the Bill, for the very simple reason that in the Bill they defined the offence and provided for penalties in the event these things happened. So the possibility of these effects was contemplated and was covered by the definition of the offence and provision for penalties.
Against that background I am afraid that I do not believe—and the hon. Gentlemen did not press this—that there are grounds to justify a review of the rights to take water which were granted to the corporation by the Act. I do not think we would be justified in reaching back into the past in that fashion.
The hon. Member is rightly concerned about the effects of abstraction on streams in his constituency. I understand that he has been advised by the corporation that it is its wish to do all it can, bearing in mind its water supply responsibilities, to minimise the effect on flows in streams. I welcome that undertaking by the corporation. I am also advised that it is drawing up a new set of operational rules relating to its abstractions, and I am glad to hear that. I would tonight want to encourage the corporation, in exercising its rights to abstract water, to take all possible steps to counter the effects on the streams.
The hon. Gentleman has questioned whether there are sufficient safeguards attached to the grant of rights to statutory water undertakers to abstract water. On the whole I think there are. The system of licensing control over abstractions, which was introduced by the Water Resources Act, 1963, is now fully operative, and the Act specifically requires the character of inland water and its surroundings and any natural beauty they

may possess to be taken fully into account in granting licences for abstractions. This is now in effect across the country, and it is important for preserving amenities for the enjoyment of the public. Certain requirements were imposed in Section 41 of the Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1965, as the hon. Member rightly said.
The hon. Member raised the question of what remedy is available to anyone who feels that the corporation has not paid sufficient regard to these requirements. He said there were not enough teeth. I have examined the Act, and there does not appear to be any provision in it for any such question to be referred to the Secretary of State or to the local planning authority. But I imagine that, as no express remedy is provided to meet that contingency, Parliament in its wisdom thought it sufficient to impose the requirements for the corporation to comply with them. One's experience of local authorities and statutory undertakers suggests that when Parliament lays an obligation upon them it is a very rare and foolish statutory undertaking which does not comply with it.
I have no reason to think that Huddersfield Corporation has failed in its obligations. I am advised that a great deal has already been done by the corporation to met these requirements. A thriving sailing club now enjoys the use of Scammonden reservoir. A car park has been provided, and picnicking is allowed round the reservoirs. The provision of facilities for the public forms part of a continuing programme. Some £10,000 was spent last year, and £15,000 has been allocated for the current year. This will include expenditure on providing footpaths round the reservoir and picnic areas.
These are ways in which the corporation is complying with both the Water Resources Act and the specific Section 41 requirements of the 1965 Act. It fits in with the general policy of my Department, for we require all water authorities to make their water space available to the public for amenity, recreation and conservation. I hope that no public water undertaking or local authority is under any misapprehension about where the Government stand on the question of using our water resources in, for example, reservoirs for amenity and for recreation. We want to see all such water space


made accessible to the public for fishing, sailing, canoeing and any other sport or pastime so long as public safety and needs of water supply are safeguarded. In some areas there has been a good response to the proposed use of reservoirs for sport and sailing. It is not for me to tell any river authorities or local authorities how to handle its own affairs, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are acting in the spirit of the Government's policy in keeping with the wishes of Parliament when they open up reservoirs and all other water resources for conservation, recreation and amenity.

Mr. David Clark: But does the hon. Gentleman realise that Scammonden is another valley, and that, while the Huddersfield Corporation may give access there, it is taking away from the public in the Colne Valley access to waterways and streams there?

Mr. Griffiths: I understand the geographical situation between Scammonden and the Colne Valley. I am giving an illustration of the corporation's response to the statutory obligation upon it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Eastergate. I do not have time to deal with that specific point now, but I shall look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman about it. He also mentioned the restriction of public access to land at Drop Clough. I am advised that, although a gate has been provided across a short stretch of a new roadway giving access to a meter house, public access is not affected. As I understand it, legally the situation remains the same.
The hon. Gentleman is also concerned about the supply of water to a number of houses which rely on a spring source. Supplies from the source are said to have been reduced as a result of the corporation's abstractions of water. The corporation denies this. Its engineer is satisfied that the springs are unaffected, though the building of a good number of houses has had the effect of increasing the demand on the spring supplies. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the corporation is about to lay a main to serve the houses in question. I have no doubt that he knows of the proposal.
I have seen a number of other points that the hon. Gentleman has made in correspondence. It is true that the corporation obtained a licence from the river authority in 1970 to abstract water from a stream not named in the Act. However, it is understood that at the same time the river authority revoked licences relating to three points of abstraction which were authorised by the Act. According to the river authority, the net result is that no greater quanity of water will be taken than the quantity authorised to be taken under the Act. This may account—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes past Three o'clock a.m.